Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  August 18, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT

12:00 pm
microphones and the cameras to tell the story even if it is a half-baked story on the counter terrorism success, that being a disruption. and at very quickly leads to the second and third iteration of questions that come from it. how did you know? how did you disrupt it? who was involved? what governments, friendly allies, who might have supported it? that's what i'm refering to to the larger cost of the public debate. and all i would submit that there is a tension between how much is put out publicly in the interests of the american people knowing obviously that our representatives are actively engaged on the topic and protecting secrets that enable the very success they're talking about.
12:01 pm
that is the topics. >> i like to open the questions from the audience. i have two people with mics. i see john there, who has a question. and, there may be others. so, john, stand up and and some win will bring a mic to you. >> [inaudible]. >> [inaudible]. thank you very much for your insight and comments and thank you for the service that you provide to the country. i wanted to get back to the workforce issue one more time. federal government next few years will be under great pressure to reduce expenditures. what do we need to do, what does the u.s. government need to do to make sure going forward we are able to still recruit and hire the kind of talent we need in the intelligence community
12:02 pm
that we invest in that talent, the growth and development of that talent that we can retain the workforce that we need in the intelligence community? what is your advice? >> why don't you repeat the question a little bit for the benefit of the cameras among other things. >> sure. what would be our views in terms of the workforce makeup and in attracting the talent that we need in the intelligence community against a fiscal fiscally-constrained environment? to put it succinctly. at the top of our intelligence community list of things to not do as we did in the 1990s, with the peace dividend is to protect our people and keeping hiring active during this period that we're currently going into or already find
12:03 pm
ourselves in and certainly going forward. and that at all costs you continue to attract the talent. one of the things, and i believe i speak for john when i say that it is so incredibly encouraging is the caliber of the applicants that we're getting in the intelligence community today and i see no diminution of that of that talent that's coming forward. it's driven by a desire for service. it is driven by a desire to give back to their country. and frankly i believe it's driven by a, a wonderful curiosity about intelligence. and i think that's a wonderful thing to tap into. i am, i am a huge proponent though of one thing that has to change dramatically and it is starting to but it needs to change far more in the intelligence community when it comes to, when it
12:04 pm
comes to its personnel. we need to over a period of 20 or 0 years, offer viable entry and exit ramps to our personnel. when i think back over 30 years, if i had left the government at year, pick any year, 15, i would have been branded as someone who, okay, good-bye, have a good life. you left the service. . . >> and not brand 'em as somehow
12:05 pm
with a little d, disloyal in terms of their commitment to the intelligence work. and we need to attack that. and so at dia that is one of my initiatives, to design a process in which the individual keeps inactive clearance -- an active clearance while they're gone and comes back 3-5 years later, welcome back. there's a place not only where they left off, but perhaps an advancement. that's fine. so that's another aspect, john, to your question in terms of not only the recruiting end of it and the need to protect the people. we have to design through creative ways how not only do we retain individuals, but offer these other opportunities. >> david said it perfectly. i would only add one thought. i'm a big fan of increasing the diversity within the intelligence community. not as a feel-good idea. it is that, of course, but because it's a business
12:06 pm
imperative. one of the things you have to do in intelligence is have people who have different perspectives because you're examining questions for which the answers are usually ill louis i have -- illusive, so you want a lot of different perspectives brought to bear on it. also, you know, we need to bartend in parts of the -- blend in in parts of the world, so our new recruits some of them, i hope, look like me, but most of them shouldn't. >> and most of them don't. >> in many ways. [laughter] >> i blend in ireland. [laughter] >> thank you. doesn't help you. doesn't help you. so, but that's -- so ethnically and linguistically it's important to have that diversity, people who speak many languages and who blend in in the world and come from be different environments and, therefore, bring different per per -- perspectives form inside a different way to problems that are hard to answer. >> do we have a question on this side of the room?
12:07 pm
>> could you identify yourself, please? >> kristin corps with. i'm hoping you might comment both on the priority you lend to determining and balancing, you mentioned the need to know versus the responsibility to protect. um, with regard to meaningful, deliberate, targeted burden sharing with foreign partners. thank you. >> with foreign partners. >> so the question is how to balance our collection of -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> [inaudible] in order to get the job done -- >> right. >> [inaudible] >> well, i would just say, first, you have to have foreign partners. i mean, that's -- there are many people who will argue that,
12:08 pm
well, why doesn't the american intelligence community just do it itself? you need foreign partners because there are parts of the world where you need to be able to pick up the phone and say to a foreign intelligence service, i need you to go to a certain place in your country if you would, please, and look for someone. i'll give you the photograph of the person we're looking for or look for a transaction that we're trying to track and so forth, and they can do that whereas we would be noticed doing it. so you need them. that's just one example. but you need them. and, um, david will want to comment on this, i'm sure, because he had a career, part of his career in this classic espionage, essentially. but it seems to me one of the things you have to do is build trust with foreign intelligence services, and you do that by doing joint operations with them. just reading the papers, you know we have some problems with some foreign intelligence service now.
12:09 pm
but you've read about all the tensions with pakistan, for example. but nonetheless, i would bet if i were still in the community, i would discover that we still have people within the pakistani service that we can trust because you build trust with a certain number of people in this services that you, with whom you do joint operations. and once you've kind of put your hand in the fire together on something of great consequence and you've both performed well, um, it's like everything else in life, you test people in your partnerships, and you find out who you can trust, and then you work closely with those people. and it's not neat and tidy, but -- and it requires, again, referring to something david said about human intelligence, it requires an awful lot of exquisite judgment about people. but, um, but it must be done, and i think it's done pretty darn well right now.
12:10 pm
>> three comments to your, to your question. the first is given the transnational, um, aspects of our adversaries in the topics, that being counterterrorism as we've discussed, we haven't mentioned wmd, weapons of mass destruction, as an issue. the whole cyber arena tells me that our dependencies and co-dependency on partnerships with allies is critical. my second comment is i don't think we ought to be constrained by how we define those relationships. some will be transactional, and the relationship will be because that service, that other country provides a comparative advantage against the issue that we're looking at. others, and it's well known our relationship with our british colleagues, our canadian colleagues, australians, the new
12:11 pm
zealanders is one where it is a much more comprehensive relationship. my third comment is i am concerned about each of these countries to one degree or another but certainly led by the u.k. that is undergoing fiscal constraint itself and the burden sharing portion. that is of no desire of those services. so this doesn't reflect -- i'm talking about the country itself and the impact that that will have. and so we're working very closely with all our allies and be friends and partners against the austerity aspects of this as well. as we look at a world in a post-arab spring environment where you look at a surge that begins in earnest at the early part of this year that will probably in a steady state be
12:12 pm
far closer to the surge numbers than where we were in december or in mid january. of 2011. and then how do you work with your partners on those kinds of issues as well? and that would be on the collective side as well as analysis. >> thank you. do we have another question from the audience? right here. >> good morning. i'm joe from northrup grumman. i have a question for david. if we look for the next three to five years and a lot of the changes we anticipate in intelligence and defense, as a contractor do you have any specific comment on how you might utilize the contractors' capabilities and work force differently? and if so, what type of changes can we expect, and what could we
12:13 pm
get better at to support your mission? >> okay. it's a great question, joe. one big word: innovation. um, speaking for dia, but i know from my colleagues across the community this is a critical area. somewhere in the 1984-'86 period the private sector, and i will throw in the international private sector, overtook government in the r&d area, and it is nearly a vertical curve today, and we've mentioned it in the terms of technology. and our ability to quote-unquote catch up with that is zero, and we shouldn't even attempt it. that's not what government ought to be doing. but rather, it needs to be tapping into the capabilities of the private sector through the contractor community to bring
12:14 pm
innovation into government. and adapt that innovation to the requirement. so i would put that if not at the top of my list in terms of the contractor community, i would put it very close to it. the second view of the future that i have is we need to continue to identify with our overseers in congress, obviously, vitally important to us. where it makes more sense to continue to rely on the contractors. i think there is a big hand out there that just says, you know, contractors emerged after the 9/11 events, and they haven't gone home, and now we're absolutely reliant on 'em. the answer is, yes, and for some very good reasons. if i look at i.t., for example, for us to recreate that
12:15 pm
internally with the fast-changing pace that john described of every 18 months in the terms of computing power and that is, that makes no sense. but then we have to articulate exactly how we're going to use contractors for the needs and services of the next, um, several years in a context of where there is at times a presumption that we're too contractor-dependent. so i would put that in. some of that overlaps with what i said about innovation, but some of it is goods and services that are better provided by the contractor community, and be i'm absolutely fine with that. it's my job and the job of the leadership of the ic and director clapper to articulate back to our congressional overseers as to where those areas are.
12:16 pm
>> another question? right here. >> thank you. gary bell, in the air force. there have been a couple of comment today about the need for collaboration and perspectives and stuff, and one of the things we struggle with in the air force in our research community in particular is that tension between wanting to protect our technological edge, but the vital importance of information sharing and collaboration to actually do good research and foster innovation. so the question i'm asking is sort of maybe it's a counterintelligence question. i'm just looking for perspective, are there ways for us to judge whether we're striking that right balance? with all this worry about giving away too much information, but it's hard to know what you've given away. and i'm just interested since you guys are in this business,
12:17 pm
is there some way to judge how much the bad guys are getting from us, or are there things we could use to judge that we're doing this well or not? i understand that's a tough question to ask, but i didn't want to pass on the opportunity to take advantage of what you guys know. [laughter] >> well, i guess they get too much, is that -- [laughter] >> here's what i would say -- >> [inaudible] >> well, the one thing you can be certain of is that counterintelligence has been with us, you know, and spying has been with us since biblical times. so people are always trying to gain the secret information we have. and the people change from decade to decade and era the era. era to era. so there was a huge effort
12:18 pm
within the intelligence community and specialists who spend their time working on counterintelligence, that is trying to detect and often successfully detecting penetrations of our systems. now, this is changing for all the technological reasons that i talked about earlier: it used to be that it was spy upon spay. if you went back to 1960, '70, '80s, you know, the stories you'll remember were, you know, american being png, that is being declared persona non grata for spying and so ort. classic spying still goes on, but now you have the additional layer of information technology, and with it, um, the whole issue of cybersecurity. that is the capacity to get our information without ever, more by a key stroke than by a human
12:19 pm
agent. so the whole field of counterintelligence has become more difficult and complex. and about all i can tell you without, you know, going into the the innards of that business is there is a constant, ongoing effort at very senior levels supported by substantial staff in places like particularly the fbi and the cia and parts of the u.s. military to detect unwarranted penetration of our systems by human agents or by cyber. and i would just say it's getting harder. um, and this is also facilitated by the openness that, about our secrets that i think david and i have both lamented. you don't have to work as hard to learn things about us as we
12:20 pm
have to work to learn things about some of our adversaries. >> let me follow up a little bit on that by asking you both maybe to talk a little bit more about cybersecurity. we didn't bring it up as a topic specifically, but there's huge concern, there are penetrations of the military, of the defense department every day, hundreds and hundreds of defense contractors. um, what is the role of intelligence? there are a lot of people working on this problem. what is a key role of intelligence in combating this problem? is it identifying, is it trying to identify who the cyber attackers are? is that the main role, or is there some other role? >> i can do it if you want me to. >> i can start it and pick up from there. i believe a significant step was taken in the creation of the
12:21 pm
subunit, the subunified command under general keith alexander at nsa in giving him the dual hat for looking at cybersecurity as a mission set under strategic command. the reason i believe that's so significant is our ability to defend is directly proportionate to the ability to detect what the adversary is doing in cyberspace. and by building, then, the partnership of the national security agency/cyber command with the department of homeland security for that which is cyber inside the united states, i think we have a road map -- far from having arrived at our destination, but a road map for how to share the information of what our adversaries are doing to us and then protecting inside
12:22 pm
the homeland through the dhs, um, avenue. but intelligence is at the core of understanding what our adversary is doing in cyberspace because our ability to detect in that arena is predicated on our ability to see and do peer review, shall we say, with what the adversary is doing. >> let me add a point to that. i just came back from the aspen security forum, and there was an interesting session there on cybersecurity, and everyone's talking about it these days. it's a big, complicated field. a couple of ideas here. first, we haven't had a cyber pearl harbor yet. we all imagine what it might look like. all of our atms being taken down or whatever. or an attack on our electrical grid. we haven't had that, and we may never have it. but in the absence of such an event just as 9/11 crystallized
12:23 pm
terrorism for people, i would say prior to 9/11 in if much of the world there was a climate of disbelief about the idea that terrorism could be spectacular in that sense. 9/11 crystallized that. we haven't had a crystallizing event. there have been incidents in georgia and parts of the baltic states and so forth that we can talk about, but we haven't had that incident that throws it all into bold relief for everyone. hope we never do. second thing is that david, i think, was alluding to this. you've got the public/private dimension of this. so you've got what we can do as intelligence within the government to secure military systems, systems you work on, intelligence systems. then you have the whole private sector where much of the information that adversaries want is actually in the private sector. what did we talk about earlier? technology innovations? where is that occurring? mostly in the private sector.
12:24 pm
that's where a lot of our adversaries are going to go for that information. but does the private sector want nsa mucking about in its business? maybe, maybe not. but those are things that are still being sorted through. now, here's the most interesting idea i heard in the aspen security forum is among the cyber specialist was this: it's a cultural idea. as we go forward, we have a whole generation of people coming along who don't care much about privacy. it's an interesting idea that i'm thinking of, you know, my kids and others who -- let's leave my kids out of it, this might be on television. [laughter] but we have -- >> other kids. >> -- a generation of young people who are throwing a lot of stuff out there on facebook and linkedin and everything else without the kind of concern about privacy that my generation
12:25 pm
grew up with and have sort of rubbed into it. so when we look ahead, it's not that we don't want to protect vital information, but the whole idea of, basically, americans like government when their security is threatened. they don't like government when their privacy is threatened or when their communications are threatened. so just going forward that's an interesting thing to think about, that culturally we may be evolving into a society or a world where a lot of people don't particularly care if you're tromping about in their cyberspace. >> so let me see, i should note that government executive has just published a special issue on cybersecurity and that our terrific technology web site, next, has a lot of other information in addition to what
12:26 pm
was published in this print on that topic. i think we have run out of time. there is so much more we could talk about, but we've, we've covered some very interesting territory, i think. and so let me thank john and david for being with us here today and, please, join me in giving them a round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> vice president joe biden is out of the country today. he's visiting the far east as a
12:27 pm
part of the obama administration's efforts to renew the u.s. role in asia. he started his journey today in beijing, china, with a meeting with chinese premier wen. >> boo. he'll be there until sunday. on monday mr. biden travels to mongolia for a meeting with that country's prime minister before leaving on tuesday for tokyo. and while in japan the vice president will meet with the prime minister. he'll visit u.s. troops stationed there and tour cities damaged by this year' earthquake. here's what's coming up for you today on the c-span networks. at 12:30, c-span will be live at the american enterprise institute for how changes are impacting political parties. that's expected to start at 12:30 eastern on c-span, just a couple of minutes from now. and at 3 p.m. eastern the gallup organization is hosting an event
12:28 pm
looking at public opinion of america's public school system and the value of higher education. again, that's on c-span. in a city that averages 250 murders a year, former baltimore homicide detective cel vin sewell and stephen janice take on the tough question, why do we kill? is it's one of the books we're featuring this weekend on c-span2's booktv including a book launch party for armstrong williams and his latest "reawakening virtues." and how unlikely allies got together to try to change our nation's school system. court tv founder steven brill talks with former assistant education secretary diane ravitch on "after words." you can also watch nearly all of
12:29 pm
our 9,000 programs online. >> and now a discussion analyzing the origins and dynamics of nonviolent movements around the world. panelists include the president of the international center on nonviolent conflict, jack duvall, and william zartman. former program director at johns hopkins university. the international peace and security institute in collaboration with johns hopkins hosted this event. it's an hour, 40 minutes. >> good evening. my name is cameron chisholm, and i'm the president of the international peace and security institute, and i'd like to welcome you all to "why here, not there: investigating emerging nonviolent movements." ..
12:30 pm
>> the first outcome of this natural connection is the symbolism on conflict resolution and reconciliation that we just finished up the second annual program of in italy at the site center. it's a month-long intensive training on the practical skills needed to bring of violent conflict to an end. we have some of the alumni in the room tonight. they have lanyards must like this around their neck. if you have questions you can ask them.
12:31 pm
with a table out there with materials. so this is the actual second outcome of the associations between sais. this is the first of what will be three yearly panel discussions on issues that we believe are pertinent to the talk. i think we can all agree 2011 has been a year defined by tremendous social of people across the globe. some of the uphill has been successful, and some have had tragic consequences for those involved. some of the a people has been extremely violent, and so must come to a close with little or no bloodshed. from tunisia to thailand, egypt to chile, syria to yemen and longed our very own wisconsin, normal citizens are struggling to change the system that governs their lives. tonight we afford experts with this that have a blend of deep knowledge in nonviolent action, human rights and conflict management who themselves will
12:32 pm
grapple with the topic why here, not there? why does nonviolent action successfully take root and sprig transformation in some situations and not in others? you have the speakers bios in front of you. you can find them online at www.ipsi i know most of these figures don't need an introduction but i will do it anyway. first jack duvall who is the president of international center on nonviolent conflict and a well-known producer and author. his book, a force more powerful, is one of the cornerstone tax on strategic nonviolence and is a must-read for anyone interested in the topic. his documentary, there's also some copies out there, of the same and they rated outlines the history of strategic nonviolent conflict around the world and it's been translated into 10 languages and viewed in over 80 countries. second, doctor cindy armor, the
12:33 pm
senior conflict prevention officer at the department of state, office for the coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization. she leads in agency teams from the u.s. government to prevent violent conflict, mitigate its effects and transforms societies after peace pictures worked all over the world with a significant time spent in southeast asia and africa. third, gimena sanchez-garzoli the senior associate for the andes can washington office on latin america, or as most of you know. she is a leading expert on internally displaced persons, refugees and human rights. she has fought tirelessly for the rights of over four main internally displaced persons in colombia as well as the rights were afro colombian and indigenous communities. she's also a sais graduate i worked on the brookings institutions sais project on internal displacement. and last but not least, william zartman is professor emeritus at the johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies and he was the founder
12:34 pm
of the department here. he is one of the most influential and well respected academics in the world in the conflict management field and he has shape must -- much of the vernacular by pretty much everybody else. we can thank mr. sharma for concepts like ripeness and stalemate which have come to think about the world approaches conflict situation. doctor zartman also happens to be the chairman of the board of international peace and security institute which is what i make them come today. the way this will work on each the glove 10 to 15 minutes to give their opinions on the stated topic. will hold questions to the end and then we will do a 30 minute q&a. so with that i'm going to go ahead and head over to jack duvall and start this panel. thank you. >> thanks very much. it's a pleasure to be here. to see a coherent, enthusiastic about this subject are some of this -- some of us in this field, as most practitioners
12:35 pm
around the world had to beg and beseech audiences to gather and hear a little bit about this subject, only really 10 years ago. so the time of the relevance of this has never been more acute than it is now. what i'd like to do in my remarks is that the table, if i may, for the discussion by surveying what's happened historically with respect to the use of nonviolent resistance as a method of political and social change. then define for you what we believe, what i believe to be the inherent dynamic in what intel's movements in campaigns when they are successful. and then give you a little run down on some of the lesser-known nonviolent struggles that are occurring today that are not as conspicuous. and the fact perhaps even to some extent less conspicuous in the last several months because
12:36 pm
of all the general media attention on the arab spring. the record of the success of nonviolent resistance to as a way to struggle for rights, freedom and justice is really quite stunning when you look at it from the level of orbit, if you will. within the last 100 years there have been dozens of successful movements, all of us know about the ones that are usually mentioned in the first few minutes of a general media report about this. but just to survey that aching for you, obviously the indian independence struggle in the 192730s, principally by gandhi. then in 1944, and much less well known struggle against a dictator in el salvador which was extremist successful through a popular general strike that lasted only 30 days. in the 30 year loan, really 40
12:37 pm
your long entirely nonviolent struggle of african america under the leadership of eventually dr. martin luther king jr. in the united states. there was also then in the 1970s and extraordinary struggle that unfolded in argentina launched many believe by the famous mothers of disappeared in the square in buenos aires against the military junta in argentina, and the skill of its repression in that country which began a series of events that eventually led to the dissolution of that regime. the movement against the dictatorship of augusto pinochet in chile which although made in 1988 in his having to resign, step down as president after a national plaza site. the long running movements in eastern europe, and the former soviet union against one party authoritarian control in that region, perhaps best represented by the solitary movement of a
12:38 pm
nonviolent transition to democracy in poland. the people power revolution as it was called by filipinos who did it to detach ferdinand marcos from power in 1986. the so-called velvet revolution in czechoslovakia which should be mentioned, if for no other reason than its leader, vaclav havel, was one of the century's great theorist of the internal dynamic involved in successful nonviolent struggles. the very notable in somewhat different and not well export nonviolent transition from authoritarianism to democracy in mongolia in 1989 and 1990. the nonviolent transition to democracy in the african country of mali in 1991. the nonviolent resistance to the two, attempted to against gorbachev and yeltsin in 1991. the long running struggle which was also successful about that
12:39 pm
time to accomplish truly a regime change in south africa, the anti-apartheid struggle led by the african national congress and a democratic fund in the 1980s, particularly in that country. then the so-called color revolutions in serbia, georgia and ukraine, each much different from the other, but all of which ended up in a transition to a more democratic state that existed before. the so-called orange revolution in ukraine which was really a defense of an election more than it was a fully nation changing them aquatic movement. there are lots of ways -- democratic movement. one was a study in 2005 by freedom house which noted that in a 35 years between 1970-2005, there were a total of 67 transitions around the world of all kinds from authoritative
12:40 pm
democratic systems. and that in 50 of the 67 transitions, the pivotal force, the propeller was some sort of nonviolent coalition, some sort of civic group of those engaging in protest strikes, demonstrations to be the instigator initially of the transition. not all of those transitions were quote unquote revolutionary. revolution is a word that is way overused with respect to these kinds of transitions. but without the but for factor in almost although some sort of nonviolent force. in even larger historical study was finished just a couple of years ago, actually it is still going on but a cow was made and the book was published this year by colombia university press called why civil resistance works by erica chenowith and maria stephan. that evaluated 323 nonviolent and violent insurrectionary campaigns and movements between
12:41 pm
the years 1900-2006. and the headline fun that violent campaigns could be said to have been successful in some important phase of that operation, in about 26% of the violent cases. and the nonviolent campaigns or movements could be said in a 106 year period have been successful in about 53% of a nonviolent cases. this is not what even today the mainstream media knows or believes, which is why so much coverage in the first five minutes of any cable or broadcast news program anywhere in the world typically isn't the best filter on objective fact about what's going on. it's not that they want to distort the truth of what is happening. they don't see it in many cases even when it is happening. gandhi's work in india obviously from a historical point of view and also from a world headline
12:42 pm
attention acquiring perspective was seminal, but he was also a master strategist of nonviolent conflict. he sequenced and innovated in use of nonviolent tactics to but extremely strategic pressure on his opponent. his work in part prompted the american scholar gene sharp to identify hundreds of different kinds of nonviolent tactics, many of which gandhi had used, and grouped them in accordance with three categories. petitions and marches and walkouts, tactics of noncooperation. we actively withdraw our cooperation from the state or from the opera star, boycotts and strikes and civil disobedience come and we've raised the cost of repression and holding control. and type is a direct physical intervention to impose an even greater economic costs on the oppressive. so the dynamic of the use of nonviolent or civil resistance i think can be reduced to this.
12:43 pm
when people acting together in large organized groups using these various kinds of tactics in a sequenced way to advertise to the rest of the country that they are depriving that oppressor other consent they say we don't believe that you have legitimacy in calling the shots in this society. because of wha what you are doi. and then they listed their grievances. and what's wrong with the country. that discourse and active withdrawal of consent reduces the perceived legitimacy of the existing system. legitimacy goes down. that is a weakening of the concept, the idea behind the hold on control that the system has. when enough people participate in this withdrawal of cooperation, that physically and socially and economically increases the cost of holding
12:44 pm
control. when police have to work overtime, when soldiers have to go to 60 parts of the country in order to confront demonstrators, real costs are being borne by a system which has resorted to that kind of operation in order to hold control. this is not simply beseeching and oppressor to stand down, this is putting so much pressure on that system that those who are even defending and enforcing it begins of doubts about whether it is sustainable. and most of them are not tethered ideologically to the oppressive system. they are only working for the system. they are taking a paycheck. and they have to then begin to think, well, if this group isn't going to be in power in five or 10 years, or does that leave me? once this question pervades even the structure of the state or of the oppressive system, not only do you have our physical cost being paid and legitimacy being challenged, by what appears to
12:45 pm
be a representative campaign or movement, and now i'm talking about the form that it takes what is the challenge to an authoritarian ruler, but even the expectations of what the future will be again to change. and the ability of that state or that system to freeze people in a system that holds control begins to be challenged. the movement in the campaigns that are going on today are not simply antiauthoritarian struggles. there are important struggles going on against occupation, and for autonomy and independence. there are also struggles increasingly for social justice that take the political for a struggles against systemic corruption. and against pervasive social violence and other forms of violence that the state is unable to control, perhaps because it is paid to stay out of the action. there are protracted struggles which continue, some of which have made real progress in recent come in the last decade year in palestine, in burma, in
12:46 pm
tibet and in zimbabwe. there are overlooked movements today by denis. in vietnam a pro-democratic struggle, in western sahara, great deal is going on. in ethiopia, in azerbaijan, in fiji, in kashmir. so then larger countries in which there is a great deal of disaggregated resistance around a number of different issues which she allegedly represent a challenge to the system. in iran, in china, in india, in brazil, in nigeria, in russia and even initial signs of this in saudi arabia. and there are some brand-new movements such as javier sicilia's movement in mexico which is also in effect a movement against political corruption within the state itself. there are a number of others that i haven't mentioned, but all of these effectively need a few criteria off whether they are a movement.
12:47 pm
political change is being advocated and is being also resisted by a ruling elite are a group of some kind which wants to hold society and its existing state, instead of a comedy this change and this force for change. there are self organize coalitions or individual groups and campaigns of people campaigning around clusters of issues, or systemic change. and then in the course of events that these movements at the protagonist for, you see catalytic events that involve either some outrageous manifestation of behavior on the part of the regime, to which ordinary people have had been involved in organized campaign rally and decide now is the moment, this is what has the action which, of course, we know what happened in tunisia, which was followed by egypt, which opens up, took the lid off enormous political and social discontent in the arab world. so i hope i've drawn the landscape for you of what we have seen historically, what it
12:48 pm
is we're looking at systemically, and where it's happening in suggestive form around the world. >> i guess we're just moving right along and i am next. i am sitting closest. i am going to give a slightly different perspective on this question, answering this question. for the reason that my background is not nonviolent conflict, nonviolent conflict engaging in nonviolent conflict. i am very honored to be here with this panel and have heard your presentation, and always honored to be on the panel with william zartman. and for the first and also my colleague on my right. so i thank you very much for being here and allowing me to be here and present to you. i work for the united states government. i'm in the state department. so that will tell you a little bit about my perspective right
12:49 pm
there. and let me also add quickly that everything you hear coming out of my mouth this afternoon is the perspective, the view, the thought, the opinion of cynthia irmer and not necessarily the thought, perspective overview of the united states government. so don't hold them to it. hold me to it. as i thought about the question why, why here, not there? it occurred to me that my best and most truthful response to that, to you, is that i don't know. and i'm not sure that any of us knows. i won't speak for all of us because everyone besides myself, but i'm not sure that we know. i can speak from the perspective of the conflict resolution, conflict announces field, the peace studies field, and say that part of the reasons we don't know the why, from that
12:50 pm
perspective, is that we are instead most often looking at the mechanism of how conflict becomes violent. so we actually have, it's not a good understanding we have some pretty systematic and regularized thinking, and good thinking, on that mechanism. and some of those things that you are all for with, i'm certain, include the basic human needs, grievances of identity groups, key actors, the things that motivate them, the ways they have to organize or mobilize people around their grievances. these are the kinds of things that we think about that help us understand how a situation can become violent. it occurs to me that if we really want to get to understanding the why, we may have to ask ourselves some different kinds of questions.
12:51 pm
we may have to shift or refocus our looking. we may need a different worldview. i think i can safely say that to this room full of people. you can safely say that to any room full of people, trust me. but we may need to do that. we may need to say, if we're going to look at key actors, maybe in addition, if not instead of, looking at political, state, and nonstate actors that are at a very high level. if not only looking at actors who have enormous resources and can get into the news media every day, we made to look at key actors who look more like wise people, or sages, or community activists. people that we might not always
12:52 pm
be looking for. and we may be looking at a different scale of analysis. in addition to looking at the state level of conflict, we may need to start looking also at conflict at the community level. that may sound overwhelming to us. it may sound like something we can do. but i'm beginning to believe that there is no way we can understand why violence, if we don't understand community. if we don't have a sense of why people who are living in the violence condition or in a passive nonviolence resistance, if we don't understand what community means to them, in their words not in our projection onto them of what we think of that community, but what it means to them and their words.
12:53 pm
how community coalesces. how do people come together? and what do they come together around? and why? questions that help us understand that i think are of utmost importance if we want to understand why nonviolence. also, how communities that if i hit by that i mean how they get energized. so they coalesce, what gives them life, what gives them the ability to move through space and time, and, in fact, stand up together and resist when that's what they do. we need to understand that. i don't even have the beginnings of understand that except to say that i think it's critically important that we understand that. and in addition to that end, how communities manifest. what do we see? and again, not only in our
12:54 pm
description, not only standing back and saying corrupt, rebel, anything. but instead going and listening to the people who are looking at and saying, what do you say? how does community form here? they may not have even thought of it, but i think we still get good answers if we ask those kinds of questions and get them thinking about it, rather than as speculating about it. it moves us one step further away from reality, in my view, when we speculate. it moves us closer to reality when we ask, let somebody struggle with an answer, and then listen to the answer in their words, and don't try to translate it into our words. and, finally, wait, i think i did the final. wait, the final is manifest. so how do communities manifest? they coalesce, they vivify, they
12:55 pm
take life. and then what do they show up as? do they show up as a peaceful resistance? resistance? do they show up as a cell of people angry with guns and bombs who will destroy things because they feel unheard, unacknowledged? of these are things we need to find out, and always from the perspective of the people we're looking at. in fact, it would probably be very helpful from my perspective for us to take a near and hold it up and say, how does community coalesce, vivify and manifest here in the state department, here in the united states of america? those kinds of questions would also be useful because it gives us more information about what i'll worldview is and how might be filtering the innovation that is coming in. okay, so -- the thing about this, too, is it sounds a little odd, sounds a little different. but the truth, we don't have to
12:56 pm
reinvent the wheel. in truth if we want to begin this sort of inquiry into community and understanding why violence or why nonviolence, we can take a few pages out of the lesson books of other movements, other activities, other events that already occur. some of these things are known to us as simple organizing, civic organizing. our own -- our very own president of night stays wrote a book about a lot of this. there are lessons in how they go about doing this, what they understand and what connections need to be made that we would do well to understand why violence, why nonviolence. there's a big body of work and effort called public participation, don't know how many of you are for me with that, but also many years, two decades, two and a half decades of work, working with the
12:57 pm
public, getting them to engage and be part of decision-making that affects their lives. this also can help us understand that. and a third one i think would be useful for us to look into the approach used and the underlying philosophy is the community mediation. mediation that are done on a community scale, on a community level for community purposes. a lot of things that already exist we don't have to start over from zero. thank you. i would like to end on high note and this is as high as i get it is not a high c. i won't do that to you. but my high note is it is my opinion, not a penny of the united states government, that the president of the united states is, in fact, very much aligned with this kind of thinking, and that this is a very good thing and a good sign for those of us the work in the u.s. government.
12:58 pm
it's part of what helped me get up every more and go to work with a smile on my face and energy in my bones. and not only the president but also the secretary of state. the secretary of state, i don't how many of you follow the things that she does, but from my perspective as a government employee when she issued this thing we called a qddr, stands for quadrennial diplomacy and develpment review, she said conflict prevention is a core capacity of the state department here a. that's huge. so knowing that this is already, already resident in those liters of hours the level of the present of the united states and the level of the secretary of state is very empowering, i think. and also one smaller bit is that the office that occur they work
12:59 pm
for, stabilization -- coordinator for -- i almost forgot. stabilization and reconstruction, reconstruction and stabilization. they got it backwards i think when they named it. is actually going away and it will be a new bureau. and it is my sincere desire as a government employee that many other things that we are already doing in his bureau, and this office right now will show up in this new bureau. some things like a tool you missing out on the table called interagency conflict assessment framework. we are reusing. we've used it around the world in several embassies, going out and listening to people, analyzing not only conflict, but social, local and indigenous resilience and strength. what's good, what strong, what's already working right here, and how can we see that growing up that, in a way that maybe u.s. foreign assistance supports it,
1:00 pm
maybe it's policies for the comes from the u.s., but it is grounded in local and indigenous strength and resilience. thank you very much. >> i'd like to begin by first thanking the organizers for inviting me to this very special event. it's great to be back at sais but everything seems very small to me. i guess that's what happens when you come back after 12 years or so. but i would like to talk about is basically a what are known as resistance communities in colombia. in colombia has been embroiled in internal conflict, horrible conflict since 1964. this conflict has had a great cost in terms of human lives and human rights violations.
1:01 pm
mostly rural peasant communities, many of them afro descendent, indigenous as well as other community. when you look at the paper of the united states the united states injuries about colombia, you often hear about the violent groups pictured about the drug traffickers, you hear about the military taking over something or another picture about the guerrilla groups like farc and the horrible actions they commit against civilians. what you don't hear about, we'd love to see a change that is the real courageous colombians. those colombia to out in these areas with the conflict is taking place. you are trying to figure out a way out of the conflict, first for the own benefit, for the security to be able to feed themselves and do their daily lives, but also because they see that a military solution, the pilot solution to the conflict is not working.
1:02 pm
hasn't worked. so in terms of these nonviolent movements, their several different categories, and one of them is called the peace communities. and the peace community concept is basically an idea that came about in the mid 1990s when internally displaced persons returning to their homes decided that they were going to designate a certain area where they were going to live. they were going to demarcate that area with signs, with fences, and put big posters up stating that in the area only civilians could be present. all of the armed groups, whether they be official or unofficial, could not be in that space, could not be in that area. all of the members of the community would basically pledge an oath to not deal with any of the armed groups, to not carry arms and munitions, and also to not engage the armed group when
1:03 pm
they had conflict between themselves. snorts the idea was to designate a whole area -- so in other words, the idea was to live in peace and go about its business. since many of these peace communities were developed in areas where people were literally surrounded by the armed groups which meant that their livelihoods were often at stake because they couldn't travel from one place to another due to restrict of movements from these armed groups, peace committee also goes further and develop a whole community project that involved self sustainment in that land. so rotate and working together to make sure that the committee has what it needs to feed itself, to take care of itself, and remain in that space, especially during times of blockades and so forth. so the most well-known peace community in colombia is the peace community of san jose located in the region in the
1:04 pm
northwestern part of colombia. and it's not the only one. another form of civilian resistance that was also something initiated by internally displaced persons who decided to go back to areas where the conflict was still taking place are the humanitarian zone and the biodiversity zones. these zones which we have seen different parts of colombia but mainly in the department of choke oh, basically apply international humanitarian law on the ground. what they did is they take the geneva conventions in -- and the principles of civilians not being engaged or forced to be engaged by the armed groups in the conflict and also make it a reality, also designate a certainty where they live and they work. but they don't go as far as the
1:05 pm
peace community in terms of making sure that all of their needs are met within that zone. another form of community resistance we have seen that has been a more utilized zone in areas where there is a high rate of narcotrafficking and coca leaf growing is what are known as the resistance mean to him and then example of this is in the region of colombia in the south area of the pacific whereby afro colombians have decided, look, the problems for us isn't just the internal armed conflict but it's the fact that these armed groups come in, they force us to grow coca, and once that happens they also come in and they bring in their way of life. to recruit our people, they basically, when they get mad at us they kill our people, what have you. so we've got to get rid of the coca.
1:06 pm
and then this experience, which have seen is that rural farmers have come together and eradicate the coca themselves. they found that by doing it in numbers, in 200 or 300 rural farmers go in and eradicate coca, it makes it very difficult for the guerrillas to kill all of them because it makes them look really awful. and pressures of the guerrillas to accepting the fact that these communities don't want to be part of the drug trade. so those are some of the examples that happens. what we are seeing most recently, and this happened in the past 10 days is that some of these movements are joining together, and that you have seen peace resistance movements, afro colombian movement, and dominguez join together to figure out a way forward in terms of the internal conflict and going beyond their localized situation, to see how they can actually spur a movement that
1:07 pm
promotes peace in the country. and since the topic of this evening is why, i was trying to think of why these nonviolent resistance movements and basically one thing that i can say that they'll have in common is that they all agree the military solution to the conflict is just not working. and that you need to find another way. they also all i very much a commentary on the political and social allegiance saying they're not solving a prom. since it been a high level of corruption within the social and political elites, especially corruption linked to illegal armed groups such as, many of you know, paramilitaries and others, they have decided that as rural farmers and then the more marginalized commuters, they're going to take this on themselves. another reason why these movements continue to develop and gain ground is because as a practical need for these people
1:08 pm
to find a way to live amongst the armed people and to the basic security for themselves. like i said, 5 million colombians have been internally displaced and most displaced colombians are displaced three, four times because even within the country they can't find an area of refuge because they are often stigmatized or they are seen as suspicious by one group or another because they come from a certain region or they face tremendous discrimination for being rural farmers are being afro descent is our indigenous. so basically this is a practical solution that the victims of the conflict are the people of high risk are becoming victims. also key to these movements is the idea that justice is a big part of peace promotion. in the case of the san jose peace community, they have documented over 180 human rights abuses committed against them during the time that the reform until now. they've also been able to
1:09 pm
unfortunately document and get a traumatic of some of the massacres that have taken place, but not very far. and what you see among these different movements is that they often see that, you know, combating impunity and pushing for justice and human rights i'll go hand-in-hand in constructing a political climate that would lead to peace. so have these movements been a success? well, you really have -- it depends on how you look at it. on the one hand, you can say no, it's not a success. use the internal conflict. you've had multiple failed peace efforts. these are very localized solutions of conflict resolution and mediation with the group. hasn't worked. or you can look at it as the fact that all the communities that we are talking about in
1:10 pm
colombia, the ones that have been able to gain the possibility to prevent further displacement and have a certain level of security have been these groups. so in a sense it has established some localized peace effort for them. it also has kept colombia for different parts of the international community in the spotlight in terms, that there is an internal conflict still taking place. it's help generate international solidarity that raises the visibility to the problems that are the root causes of the conflict. what do we say about it? we can say that one of the reasons why it really hasn't transformed in terms of these movements from the localized peace to the broader movements has really been the failure of, in my view, the international community. it's been a failure of the international community decided
1:11 pm
in the -- deciding that a president who was elected on a platform of a military solution and taking a very hard-hitting approach to civilians around the country in order to gain military ground, that's something the international community has accepted as a cost of this, or as a given. and not decided that they want to push for support for other ways of resolving the conflict. it's also shown and exposed a lack of political will on the part of all of the armed groups and the parties to the conflict, in terms of really caring about seeing if they can move forward for peace, and because in many cases, especially in the case of the guerrilla movement being tied to the drug trade, they're still sifting movements that are able to perpetrate and keep themselves going without your usual conflict resolution mechanism whereby you get to the
1:12 pm
point where, due to attrition you have to negotiate something. so, if there's anything i would say about these movements is that, one, people involved are incredibly courageous. and you know, it has cost them a lot both in terms of deaths and so force to keep this going, but that there is a tremendous help in these movements that there is another way forward in colombia. and then secondly, in closing i would say it's very important for practitioners of conflict management, policy makers and others to learn more about these movements and see how they can support them, and see how they can find a way to transform what is a localized practical solution to something that actually leads to an end to the conflict. >> i'm here to talk about the arab spring, or by now the arab summer. [laughter] may be the autumn, certainly and
1:13 pm
not the arab fall. and that's what brought us here and that's what brings up the subject. spotlight to go back into the beginning of those events to try to understand what happened and why, and then to look at some characteristics of them and then does he also why not, and then to see why where else. to begin with, i think it's important to recognize at least to me, what's been going on is an exhilarating events. it is a spontaneous widespread secular protest against a repressive state. and its first of all important to recognize that this is a protest against the state that is arrogant, non-participatory, doesn't care about its people. you know about the tunisian incident. it embodies that kind of protest and i think it's a very good symbol of it.
1:14 pm
and economist and other people will do everything is economic, scientist will tell you everything is political. and the fact is that behind all this, part of the uncaring us of the state is that it doesn't provide jobs were large number of young people. but let's put that in perspective. that is the supporting element for what i describe first of all as a protest against the legitimacy of state. it's not the leading element. so we have here conditions then that we might call in the world bank, i think they're called promis. that is, characteristics if we find in the states that have undergone over an uprising in intifada from the arab spring. and we can find those conditions everywhere else throughout the arab world.
1:15 pm
probably more specifically throughout the arab world than through much of the african world, or other places beyond my knowledge. but places in that general area of the world. and there are two other specific characteristics of been that help us sort out those, and intifada has occurred from those where it has an upper. all, in all places except one, we had a revolt against an aging leader who was about to disappear any how, and did not have an accepted successor. except that it is important because as we know in the case of mubarak, he was grooming his son, and as intelligent as the sun is he was not accepted by the population. but in all the other cases except for syria, we have someone who is going to go anyhow. and that i think added to the
1:16 pm
ripeness, if i can use the word -- [laughter] , to the promis of the situation that led into the intifada. the other thing that is important for the return point in this kind of event is whether the army will fight on its people or not. and in the two cases where the change of regime, or at least the overthrow of the old regime was accomplished, the army specifically decided not to fire on its people. and, indeed, were part of in the egyptian case, were part of the decision for the leader to step down. in yemen, half the army decided not to fire to the other half decide to parse with a mixed event. and as we've seen in ca, in bahrain the army decided to fire on its people. to go back to the first point, the first big arrays, worthies in peaceful protests, nonviolent
1:17 pm
protest? they started out that way. in all cases they started out that way. and so we have an event that brings up 50% of success in the statistics that were cited. but when they didn't succeed, it didn't turn to violence. not violate with tanks against tanks, but violence with the kind of violence that a mob could very effectively use against forces of the government. not effectively against tanks, however. and so we have that 25% success, when it turns violent because the government is able to mobilize more violence against it than the protesters are. and that's why we are up in the air in cases like bahrain and in cases like syria, where we're kind of dangling, it's much more complicated but still the outcome is somewhat in doubt in
1:18 pm
yemen. so, where else might this occur, or why has it not occurred in some other places? and there are two places that i think are relevant, perhaps three places that are relevant. one is algeria which is just so full of proneness that you could cite it as a classic case. but it hasn't happened there. and in algeria the two conditions, or the two conditions are relevant. on one hand we have an aging leader who's going to disappear at some point, and has no designated heir at all, let alone an accepted one. and on and then there's the question of the army. but in algeria you know the army will fire on its people. that's all it fires on. so that's a chilling aspect about algeria and helps explain in part why nothing has happened there.
1:19 pm
another part, however, that has to be added to that in algeria, the army notion tends to be strengthened as well by the idea that in algeria they had 10 years of violence led by extremist islamic groups, and led by the army led retaliation against them and other people who might be suspected of, being sympathizers to them. and so, the public is tired of taking on the state. but the state is also very clever in algeria. when protests arrive, and there are protests, manifestations as we call them in algeria, not riots but manifestations. instead always comes in, and a wonderful world, word that i think is so effective, it satisfies them. it doesn't satisfy them but it buys off element of the protest, divides the protesters and then
1:20 pm
moves on. so we have a very interesting case in algeria with explanations of why things are not taking place. in jordan, we had some street protests. we had a strong state and, and we have just recently in the last couple days, a series but perhaps not adequate reform movement, constitution divisions that have been introduced and now have to get through the mechanism of the state. steel leading the king -- still leaving the king and forces control, probably not repression by control, very much in hand. and the third case is morocco, where i think one thing that is very important is that you don't have an old king ready to go but rather a team that is of the
1:21 pm
generation of the people, and some in morocco are protesting. there have been demonstrations, protests in rocko. it striking that none of them has asked for change in the system but rather for greater and accelerated reform. and the system has responded with changes in the political arrangements, within the state. that's where in preparation before the intifada began elsewhere in the world and in morocco. so, in rocko, the explanation for why it hasn't occurred is the system is still legitimate and the people are skeptically or warily, let's say warily hopeful. now we've said what people are rising up against is the old order, and they want to put to
1:22 pm
effect a new order, they want to bring in a new regime. what's it like? and the striking thing is that nobody knows that is the people who were rising up against the old regime had when demand, and maybe expressed in a number of different ways but i'll focus on the downfall of the old regime. what is it to be replaced with, we are busy at the moment. we have to get the old regime down, and then we will think about what we want to replace it with. that's a big thought to be thinking about. and it takes a lot of time. in tunisia, we see the regime is bumbling a long time to deal with dates of elections and sequences of constitution making and so on, and is making sincere
1:23 pm
but slow progress. in egypt, we see that there is a force that is present, the army. it doesn't want to take over. it wants to preserve its skin and its privileges, and it has to do with a number of forces from different directions. it's -- the process is slow and perhaps less open, less hopeful than in tunisia. and people are getting impatient. the young people who started the intifada in the first place are saying, where is this new regime? and, where are our jobs? the second demand is utterly unrealistic. you can imagine this, just thinking about it, job serving are not going to appear like that. and particularly not at this time they're going to regime falls, economics go down. and tourists go away, and,
1:24 pm
therefore, jobs become scarce or. and so it's unrealistic to say where are our jobs. but it's a natural demand. and people are getting very concerned about this. a little town in tunisia where it all started, a group of young people went to the town hall and said you better get a something quick are you will see it all over again. and we should be looking, we should be looking for that. so, the question now, where does it go if there is an early or a late overthrow? of the regime. if we have an early overthrow of the regime, i've just described the impatience that comes up as people are looking around for the replacements of the old regime and the institution of a new order. we are not quite sure what's going to happen if it's a late overthrow of the regime, except that we think that we know from past experiences that that leads
1:25 pm
to a hardening of the uprising, a hardening of demands, a radicalization of the uprising, and a hardening of groups within uprising rather than a cooperation together, even though they are focused now on that when demand, the overthrow of the regime. so, we are standing before a continuation of these events, a continuation of a search for answers to what started out in the first place. don't be misled by what we hear in the papers a lot about subversion of these movements. people say, you know, in yemen there's an al qaeda member among the group that was trying to overthrow the regime. and in egypt there's the brotherhood. of course everybody will be grabbing, trying to find out where this opening in politics can be led.
1:26 pm
the basic demand of the people who started it, it is for an open and accountable participatory regime. they may not be able to pull it off but the fact that other people are trying to push forward as well doesn't mean that it is lost but it means it remains and exhilarating, and exciting and rather open series of events that will take a long time before it finally works itself out. where else can this happen been outside of this part of the world? well, the conditions, the proneness as i said, is not the same in the rest of the continent. the old leader who is ready to go, the army who is on the fence about firing on its people are not around in many cases. people have cited the case of uganda about which i know very little, and i just mentioned it in for the record. but there is a place where we
1:27 pm
see an initial signs, and where the intifada may cross the sahara. and that is in senegal where you have an old leader, the guy in his mid '80s who wants to run again, and is also grooming his son who has zero qualifications for it, except that he is the son of his father. and where they are have already been demonstrations in the streets against the legitimacy of the regime. they are the army is most unlikely to fire on its people. and, therefore, we have the possibility of a crossing of the sahara. there is of course another place that comes to mind, and that is zimbabwe. and their it's all been tried, and the kind of reaction that we have talked about when the army will fire willingly on its people is borne out there.
1:28 pm
so, there are possibilities south of the sahara as well. they are limited, and limited by the conditions that we have seen in the northern part of the continent and in the arab world, but we might just find little pieces of an african fall. [applause] >> so i know that they're going to be a lot of questions. we will move into them by just a couple ground rules first. as there will be many questions, please leave it to only one question, no multipart questions. if we're going to everybody and you want to ask the second part of your question you can ask them. also, when all questions and with the question. it's not a comment and then so what do you think about that? that's not a question either. try to keep them less than 30 seconds and everyone will be
1:29 pm
happy. so i think will try to take maybe two questions at a time, three questions at a time. three questions at a time? so it is decided. three questions at a time. we have a couple of mic passes that will. raise your hand and they will come to you. ..
1:30 pm
>> thank you again. i have enjoyed this so much and looking for your answers as well. i feel like so often non-violent protests or movements have such good intentions but they failed to put real pressure on the oppressive force. must have so many answers to such a broad questions. one really good example, something that can predict a -- irmer in nonat violent movement. easy to predict what will be violent. if you couldn't lightness with prediction of successful nonviolent movements. thank you. >> i am with csis. my question has to do with high
1:31 pm
am wondering after the regime transition has there been any pattern in the american response to regimes with eric is military intervention, financial assistance, there have been some transitions in the last hundred years. has there been any kind of pattern? >> want me to start? unifying leaders are rare. events i'm talking about there was no leader. even in places like to nietzsche and egypt weather is a do --
1:32 pm
where there is a guru in waiting they were very slow in coming in. a leader would be nice. the nice thing about pluralism, diversity and not quite knowing where you are going is that is the beginning of a more open system rather than one where a man says thank you. great downside to having a strong leader. as a a predictor for a peaceful protest, is it likely the army will fire on its people? you can make an evaluation what the army will do. it was predictable in tunisia that it would not and i predict
1:33 pm
it won't. what is the u.s. response? my colleague talked about that more unofficially. i do think we have to understand one thing. a country like the united states and another countries like the united states, has to make a forward looking back --bet. two parts of that are important. it should not make a backward looking back --bet. this guy was our friend through thick and thin and we will stick with him is totally irrelevant. we are grateful for what he did in the past but don't want to go down with him. the united states not sticking with hosni mubarak. he was not stickable anymore.
1:34 pm
you lasted yourself. there is also criticism of the united states being slow to react. in hindsight that is absolutely true. we should have seen where things were going. hard to see where things are going in an event like this. you don't want to be in a position like we are in libya backing the people who are not winning, killing civilians for the purpose of saving civilian lives and coming in kind of late when it would have been easier to do the same thing at we come in earlier. >> so in terms of the communities in colombia we have seen a shift away from one leader and that is just to give one statistic in recent years,
1:35 pm
at least thirty-seven nyp leaders have been killed. a lot of the more successful business communities have found by teaching the ability of the collective and the community and if you lose people it goes on. we are seeing that a lot. in terms of when these nonviolent efforts -- what would be the way for them to put real pressure, cohesion and the message has been one way. finding a way to shame the parties and embarrass them internationally, a way to get economic pressure. to give one example, in 2004 the colombian military along with paramilitaries dismembered several members of their community. while those types of actions may
1:36 pm
be rather common in that community, only in that case were they able to get the united states involved and the united states decided it was going to freeze a portion of its military aid for multiple months until there was more justice in that case and all of a sudden you saw tremendous pressure that leveled the playing field between the community and the government in a way that had never before so it does work. when you have media attention and international support in the case of another community we had a whole series of people who were about to be effected and it was something that was going to happen but the immediate and international support made the political cost too great for that to happen. it is a question of tactics used and the cohesion of the message. >> i would like to talk about
1:37 pm
the question of leadership. it is a common misconception that a non-violent group needs a single charismatic leader. gandhi does not prove the rule. less was known about how to devise, plan and instruct people how to use different kinds of resistance tactics in the 20s and 30s than it is today. today you can download hundreds of thousands of pages on how to do nonviolent resistance and they're doing it all over the world. the knowledge about how to plan and execute nonviolent resistance is orders of magnitude greater than it was 70 or 80 years ago. it was much more necessary in his circumstances for there to be a single leader speaking of
1:38 pm
gandhi. the question of leadership really has to do with how to build the capacity of a broadbased divers representative campaign or movement to do the kind of pressure one of the questioners asked about. movements -- movement have to exhibit diversity and representation so they can have legitimacy. so they can accumulate political force. how to do that is a form of knowledge. it is a skill. you have to acquire that skill. you have to learn how to plan a campaign. you particularly have to know how to remain disciplined which most importantly means not to be violent because that is a serious problem in trying to cause a military or security force to hesitate. you cannot get somebody to defect to your side you are
1:39 pm
shooting at. it doesn't work that way. all these things really have to do with the skills that a movement or campaign can acquire. the skills don't have to be channeled through one individual. but once a movement for campaign acquires skills and capacities you may not need as much brightness --rightness because conditions don't dictate whether movements are successful. it is the capacity. the collective intelligence. it is the ability to put that into effect that a campaign or movement acquires. they are like nascent or embryonic political parties or can be if they are unified around particular movements or goals just as a political party in an open system needs to acquire certain political and organizing capabilities, so too does a non-violent campaign or movement.
1:40 pm
doesn't have to be channeled through a leader but those skills have to be broadly distributed which means there's no such thing as an effective movement that isn't an educational organization. that trains its people and in parts those and distributes those skills. sometimes i say what the movement really does if it is a movement that is trying to campaign for democracy does within itself worked democracy before it is open for business. when it begins to acquire those capacities it is able to bring the pressure you are talking about. >> great answers and i would just add my own thoughts with regard to the leadership. i go along with jack. i don't necessarily equate leadership with a single person or single identity or ego. i believe leadership is necessary. you don't need one single person
1:41 pm
to do it. i love what you said about unity and representation. that is worth quoting. i believe that the best predictor for success might be leadership that is about service. in service of what? the greater good? in service of the goal of the group of people being represented by this sense of leadership and however many people might be buried it. quickly to the last question, do we see a pattern? the only pattern that i have seen is genuinely people at the state department very credibly struggle with each of these things. it is hard to see before something unfolds what it is you need to be doing is right on
1:42 pm
point. i see people assigned the task of looking at each of these developing policies for the response really wrestling with this each day and reaching out hoping to get good input from different offices. are we making the right decisions? of course not. we keep trying to make the right decisions. i am not one of the people making the decisions but i believe so. thank you. >> my question is to you think that the arab world could influence countries of central asia and it seems the impact will be positive or negative for the young generation?
1:43 pm
>> hi want to ask about the influence of religion that inspires non-violent conflict. to play a major role which is why it is taking our religion is concerned. >> my question is whether or not it is important to have a reduction in support by regional powers for the oppressive government whoever it is. does that make a difference and if that support continues does it hard and the resistance?
1:44 pm
thank you. >> somebody else? >> i think that last one was two questions. i may only answer the first part of it. does it make a difference? i think i would say yes. i don't know there is evidence to prove one way or the other but it seems reasonable to assume it would make a difference and would it cause the opposition to hard and if the support continues? everything i've learned about conflict analysis and resolution tells me the right attitude to that question is yes but i don't know other than making my own call on it. central asia. will it be impacted by what is going on in the arab spring? i am no good at predictions. i grew up as a lawyer.
1:45 pm
i don't answer hypothetical questions. bill brought this up before. this is an exhilarating time. i don't know if you noticed that exhilaration, passion and delay --joy click below those catch on. people get carried away with it. i think it could. will it? have no clue. it is something that is inspiring. that is what exhilaration does for you. inspires you. religion and ethnicity. my feel -- my feelings about that is there two things around which this kind of movement can coalesce. when i talk about communities coalescing and vivifying, these are things to do that around.
1:46 pm
can they play an important role? yes. must it be religion that calls for revolt because it'll peaceful or violent revolt, i don't think that is required. as in india it is a sense of -- i wouldn't call it ethnicity. it is a sense of this is my home. >> let me jump on the question of the extent to witch international power can inhibit the work of a movement or campaign. external actors is exaggerated in the campaigns, what they are capable of. there are examples of campaigns or movements against authoritarian regimes that have been successful despite the support of the united states for the authoritarian regime.
1:47 pm
there are other examples of movements and campaigns that have not been quickly successful that have inhibited themselves by spending too much time worrying about whether they could acquire external support and not enough time developing internal capacities of their own. societies are complex. they are specific to themselves although there are cases and categories and there could be templates and generic plans. every society must make a decision for itself what its future is going to be. the idea that there can be external assistance or intelligent external in addition of social and political events inside a country, i think over rates the knowledge and
1:48 pm
intelligence of external actors usually. having said that there are some examples of external sanctions as well as external support that was well timed at particular moments and has assisted and already robust movement or campaign. the best example is south africa where external economic sanctions were extremely effective. why? because the whole world participated in those sanctions including the united states corporations. when economically the ability of a particular authoritarian regime to operate successfully and in trade terms around the world is seriously challenged by one power, even if that power is the superpower but by the community, that could have a significant effect. i would go so far as to suggest the democratic transition in
1:49 pm
south africa was driven primarily or at least more by economic factors than any other. half of that was internal factors with all the strikes by south africans in the work force as well as consumer boycotts being done by the united democratic front putting pressure on institutions across-the-board within the apartheid state. the objective is to impose costs and drive up the costs of the oppression so it is not sustainable any longer. if external power is able to do that,. but i think that is a double-edged sword because it appears as if a regime is being extern elite challenge it can use that to challenge legitimacy of the internal movement. i don't think it is a useful strategy for an internal movement to overidentify with or allies with an external power
1:50 pm
because there's a contest for legitimacy within the country itself. one additional comment about the question about religion. is not so much religious faith or belief that has played an important role in many nonviolent movements as religious institutions and leaders who because of their internal legitimacy once they become allied with the civilian movement or even defect from silence about the movement into active support can make a change. that was the case with catholic relates in chile and the philippines and giving very quiet support, material support, space to people involved to augusto pinochet and providing support to the leadership and organizations and groups
1:51 pm
involved in challenging those authoritarian leaders. the catholic church in chile and poland and the philippines were respected within the civilian populations of that where they were taping was noticeable and could help to enhance the political momentum of the group or campaign within the country. so i would put that dimension on the value perhaps of religion, really religious leaders and institutions with a country if they are important social players. >> in terms of the influence of religion and ethnicity i would say the movements that i described haven't been supported by institutionalized religion. religion hasn't really been a main role that has led to these
1:52 pm
movements. that said, there are individual religious actors who supported these movements and lived in these communities or played a role like a prominent jesuit speaking out in the media and so forth supporting these communities. with ethnicity when it comes to the afro colombian institute it played a huge role because of the situation in colombia where was until the constitution was changed in 1991. there were collective land rights and the ethnic component is a major catalyst and a cohesive force of resistance and part of these movements is the concept of ehtno education. creating their own educators so
1:53 pm
it is seen in perspective of ethnicity. in terms of the regional influence, in the case of colombia the u.s. and colombia are linked politically and financially in the anti-narcotics efforts. the u.s. plays a major role in terms of opinion shaping in colombia and perception. in terms of these movements, on the one hand the u.s. has given colombia $7.5 billion in military aid and anti-narcotics efforts. on the other hand the same government has pushed for justice and protection in the cases of these communities and had a huge role in these movements being able to last as long as they have. what is interesting is when you
1:54 pm
talk to the people of these resistance communities and movements all of them reject u.s. funding because they see the u.s. as a party to the conflict. because of the military aid and as such they would want to have no engagement with funding but political engagement they do have with the u.s.. >> could the arab revolt have an impact -- you would know better than i would. it can have some impact but not all conditions are the same. many have had regime changes. it has been there for a while and turkmenistan continued from one generation to the next.
1:55 pm
you had a revolt in turkmenistan though it was ethnically motivated as well. in a limited way you can transplant things -- does regional support matter? it matters a good deal. you see what arab states surge doing about syria, increasing condemnation but certainly not by everyone. that is a crucial factor in what the west can do in this case. we could save lives in libya but it is more dangerous to intervene in syria though more lives are being lost. libya is our hit man.
1:56 pm
when the syrians bombed a discotheque we bombed libya and now we have taken an active intervening role. the rest of nato were reluctant to do so because of the repercussions this might have in the rest of the arab world. ethnicity and religion are very divisive factors. even when a country is of the same ethnicity the divisions go down the next level. these were segmented societies. my brother and i against my cousin, my cousin and i against the outside world. >> is that coming through? all those good things i said i
1:57 pm
lost? ethnicity is a very divisive and religion too. there's nothing more divisive than the drive through in this community. the fact is they are all muslims in this part of the world. that opens it up to different interpretations. a couple weeks ago i was in tunisia and they were saying to the representatives you are muslim, we are muslim. are you more muslims than we are? why should we vote for a muslim party when we are all muslim? what difference will it make if you come into power? what is your program about being muslim? there's a lot of questioning from the inside about this. these are two very divisive
1:58 pm
aliments and points for this intifada. >> my name is melinda. i wanted to ask a question with regard to the arab spring and specifically egypt. what are your thoughts on the role of the international community in supporting constitutional reform and at the shift from nonviolent movements into institutional and government change and can there really be a significant role played or should there be if
1:59 pm
these places are unique democracies according to that region? >> given the deepening economic inequality in the u.s. and beyond the long-term pattern of economic vulnerability or low levels of participation in various communities what might we learn about the tactics of the arab spring about possibilities for social change in the u.s.? >> nancy hidden from the school of public policy. i heard two different versions of the arab spring from william
2:00 pm
zartman, i heard a spontaneous revolution and a very strategic well thought out through the campaign. i am wondering, somewhere in between the truth probably lies. can you comment on what is most likely to have been the history as we look backwards at that? >> i don't know there's a lot of distance between us. in the seven or eight countries in which there have been at least significant protests if not deliberate and systematic work by a movement organized in some fashion there has been spontaneity which is to say the occasion and the moment was largely provoked by a quickly
2:01 pm
successful largely nonviolent uprising and the so-called contagion of fact occurred and protests began in other countries. in egypt there had been over a period of almost ten years systematic organizing, occasional mobilizing the legal campaign focused on various labour as well as political and even constitutional questions at our summer institutes this year. we gave an award to a member of the so-called egyptian revolution. we decided to recognize her because she had been part of all of these events in six or seven years and was a personal emblem of the necessity of repetitive persistent organizing and action over period of time.
2:02 pm
80% of the people were there spontaneously. obviously they were there and possessed by the spirit of the occasion to rally support of what looked like a revolution. that is the eleventh hour in what was otherwise the organizing and sequencing of events developing the capacity for resistance over a longer period of time. that hadn't happened in libya. it had almost happened in syria. the resources for descend happened and there was a certain tolerance of dissent in some -- some tolerated political opposition. much more was going on that is visible today in the way of coordination and planning but nowhere near as much as this increased politicization of resistance in egypt which had taken place over a period of
2:03 pm
years. there is not a lot of difference between the two of us with respect to that question. the first question about egypt and the second question about the united states share something in common. there's something i can address. resistance in democracies is different from resistance in a nondemocracies. what you do tactically and how you do it is affected by the degree to which you initially have space in which to organize. when i began talking about nonviolent resistance after the release of our first documentary series one of our documentary's would be shown and i would speak afterwards and some energized activist would say i want to know how we can have an nonviolent revolution in the united states?
2:04 pm
why can't we do it here? one advantage americans have is there was a lot of organizing space. i wonder how it is being used right now and whether it is being used to summon resistance against particular targets on which pressure can be placed in order to force a response. this is all about power and how you summoned power from people and focus it and apply it in certain circumstances. so i think one of the effects of this year's tableau of nonviolent resistance similar to that in 1989 historically will be that there will be increased use in the united states which i devoutly hope there is because it is a way of keeping those who
2:05 pm
are elected much less those who are not democratically achieved our honest and accountable. frederick douglass said power is never accountable unless you force it to be accountable regardless of what the political conditions are. i think there will be ample notice being taken. there are some signs of that and there is that spirit and a great deal to learn and most of the movement's i mentioned can be learned that have been successful in nondemocracies can be learned from so campaigns and movements can be undertaken as needed as the civil-rights movement was in the united states 50 years ago so the campaign's can be seen in democracies as well. >> i will pick that up. it is a shame i can't come in
2:06 pm
fighting with my fellow panelists. i like the 80% figure. eighty% spontaneity. a good characterization, think of it as a stream or a dam that flows out and there are blobs and things like that together but what happened in that spontaneous movement with lots of little pieces of organization, many of them frustrated for not be ineffective in the past are looking out with who are our friends? who do we agree with? who do we want to coalesce with? what kind of movement will we build up? is testimony to the unpreparedness despite things in
2:07 pm
the background that the people say don't have elections early. give us time to get ourselves organized because there are a couple people out there who have been organized and we don't want them running away with our revolution. i don't think this is a revolution largely because of the social upheaval element. i don't think we are different in our characterization. in the united states, not that we are not looking for nonviolent protests. there's so much organizing space and we are looking for participation. we are seeing it. that is another thing that is exhilarating. you see that kind of youth turned out in obama's election and then brace yourself, the tea party is a manifestation of
2:08 pm
people getting out about ideas they have. we are full of it here. we don't need to encourage non -- nonviolent protest. we have got it. international support of egypt, the constitutional movement. we have got to remember -- i am going to talk about, it is their movement. we can't say i have a plan for a democratic society and this constitution and why don't you call your party's democratic and republican. they often do imitate those terms and run with 7 ways we would never recognize. what they are going to work out is what they're working out. it is a contradiction to say that we impose democracy.
2:09 pm
democracy is government by the people who are putting it together. you can't impose it. it is not democratic as we see in iraq. they ran off with it themselves when we brought the idea to them. we should be happy with bringing the idea but even if we are not happy about where it is going, we can help them. we can be useful. we can help them discuss together. the conference i was at in tunisia that i referred to was set up by a group, the center for the study of islam and democracy which is based in the united states and it tries to work on these themes led by a tunisian american and its purpose was goaded by an earlier
2:10 pm
conference by the national endowment of democracy on tunisia which asked the same question, what can we do? and got the same answer i am going through. csid held a meeting where a couple of outsiders like myself got together and for the most part to nations. we felt enormously successful when after we made the presentation they turned their backs to us and argued with each other across the table. that is what we can do and we hope we can -- support can be useful. >> i think we will go ahead and let that be the last word. on behalf of the international peace and security institute and conflict management program on want to thank you for spending your evening with us. we can continue the conversation in the room to your left where
2:11 pm
we will have food and refreshment and be able to meet each other and talk a little bit more. thank you very much. [applause] >> let me give you one of my cards. >> we have more live programming coming up on the c-span network shortly. at 4:00 eastern national transportation safety board share debra harris and will speak on air safety. one topic she is likely to touch on is how pilot fatigue contributes to accidents. that is on c-span2 at 4:00 p.m. eastern. coming up on c-span at 3:00 the gallup organization looking at public opinion of america's public school system and the value of higher education at
2:12 pm
3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. all this month watch booktv in prime time on c-span2. tonight it is the civil war starting at 8:00 eastern. adam goodheart discusses the civil war awakening. at 9:10 jeffrey works on his book glorious army. property's triumph. at 10:20 amanda foreman talk about the world on fire, britain's crucial role in the american civil war. >> it is a country fraught with corruption, natural disaster and islamic extremism. >> what was shocking to me and many people in pakistan is these assassinations were welcomed. were congratulated by many pakistani. these are not terrorists. they're not al qaeda or taliban but ordinary pakistani who feel
2:13 pm
their religion is threatened and the country's too secular and islamic values are under attack and blasphemy which is anything that insults' the profits or islam is something to be defended with your life. >> pamela constable sunday night on c-span's q&a. a [applause] >> remarks from former homeland security secretary tom ridge on the state of homeland security since 9/11 held by the chamber of commerce. this is about half an hour. >> thank you for your warm response. great to join you again. and take the sponsors of the event and faint the chamber for giving us an opportunity to reflect on where we were, what we have done and where we need to go. i am privileged to be part of
2:14 pm
this. frankly looking forward to the discussion -- i was privileged to serve in one capacity or another and look forward to that engagement as well. it is important that we continue the discussion of what we have experienced and learned and can still learn from september 11th, 2001. i appreciate the opportunity to share opening thoughts with all of you and look forward to secretary napolitano's comments. everybody remembers where they were and what they redoing the 9/11. you remember where you were when president kennedy was assassinated. neil armstrong walked on the moon, the challenger exploded, martin luther king was
2:15 pm
assassinated. there are surge in seminal events that are part of our national psyche that are indelibly marked in our hearts and minds. on september 10th, 2001, terrorism was viewed as an unseemly part of the world but we were a superpower. in this unequal the economy joining the standard of living unlike any other generation or any country ever enjoy it it was the imaginable that a small group of limited individuals with limited funding regardless of the intensity of their hatred could conceive and ultimately execute an attack that could result in catastrophic loss of life and economic dislocation in hundreds of billions of dollars. the attacks of 9/11 left the country stunned and increase. if you think about the last ten
2:16 pm
years, one thing we have demonstrated to ourselves and the rest of the world is our own undeniable resiliency. we went from knees bent in prayer to formation of a plan to make our country safer and more secure and we have become stronger and more secure. in a decade's time we strengthen our intelligence assets and partner with allies and friends and captured and killed terrorists and destroyed safe havens in afghanistan and around the globe. we set up the department of homeland security. over 20 different units of government with 180,000 people. it would be nice if secretary a napolitano could report to less congressional agencies. local authorities repositioned the country as the country embraced a charge and
2:17 pm
strategically driven national mission. we did so with an eye toward the safekeeping of civil liberties, our constitution and we find it important maintaining the integrity of the american brand. we improve preparedness and response capabilities and layers of security throughout the aviation system. we embedded new technology and more people at our borders for radiation portals in ports of entry design a new entry system for those international passengers arriving to visit or do work or become students in the united states. one of the things we do today is recognized we needed to recognize the value of an important part of the security solution and that is the private sector. i think we all understood after 9/11 that as the country we would have to learn to do things differently. we have to do them better. i will repeat because i truly
2:18 pm
believe this. homeland security is a federal department but not the exclusive work of the federal government. it is an agency of the federal government. extraordinary people work there but it is the work of an entire nation. the very premise of a national mission involves understanding that everything we do must be shared responsibly. a national mission means an integrated mission. partnerships, partnerships, partnerships. we all know figures embedded in the minds of most. private sector. are controlled 85% of our critical infrastructure in this country. the business community. private sector holds production and transfer of goods to all of our nation's national security routes. seaports and skies overhead. that means the backbone of the
2:19 pm
country is exposed to many levels and kinds of disruption. whether that disruption was designed by the mind of man or mother nature we have done a good job coordinating our efforts. but not a great job. i think we can do better. we need the private sector to be more involved at the table in my judgment. not less. more involved in the planning stages. not less. more involved in response and recovery stages, not less. border security, cybersecurity and infrastructure protection. wherever you go you find yourself in need of the critical partnership with public sector and private sector. remember right after 9/11 president bush called me in. we met in the oval office. he asked me to stay later and mentioned to me we had to do
2:20 pm
something different at our borders with our friends in canada and mexico because we enhanced security and ratcheted it up big time but slowdown congress. i remember going to a general motors facility in michigan, assembly plant. they ordered their seats on the front end of the assembly line. the seats were made in canada. put a computer chip on the seats and load it in the track and cross the bridge through the tunnel. one of the last things in the assembly to be inserted into the seats, everything else was done. a eight hour process. what happens if the trucks with those seats on the bridge are stuck in the tunnel for half a day because we grab the security? nothing happens in that
2:21 pm
facility. it doesn't have to be zero some game. you can enhance security and improved economic interaction which is central to the united states in the twenty-first century. the economy is global. our economic future is tied to our ability to sustain economic relationships with friends north and south and in the rest of the world. along with that interdependency comes greater vulnerability. when we look at the borders we say how the we enhance security and improved commerce? improve the connection? i will point out one of my friends who works for the chamber of commerce running the private sector office in our shop at that time. ralph bashan is overseeing border protection. the nice thing about being secretary is -- i don't like to
2:22 pm
say give orders. but set goals. you set some goals. i said we should be able to improve throughput in detroit by 25%. go do it. al and ralph said this is a classic example where you need partnership. private sector on both sides. companies that are independent. mostly supply goods, work together, customs and border protection agreed to reassign people at different times. the private sector altered their delivery schedule. my goal was 25%. with very little money but for the partnerships i am talking about improved throughput 55%. didn't take a lot of money. it did take cooperation, communication and thinking
2:23 pm
differently than we historically thought about schedules and manpower at the border. that is the partnership i am talking about. is not a 0 sum game. the economy intersect at the border. we need to understand that for all times in the future if we want to continue to be a strong economy notwithstanding the recession and the challenges we have right now. our future is tied to market activity to the rest of the world. we need to be sure we can understand we can enhance security without interfering with economic relationships and that is important to our future. we need to understand the threat remains strong and continues to change. we had thwarted some attacks and quite candidly we have to admit publicly we have been fortunate that a few others have simply failed. luck is not a strategy.
2:24 pm
as we close one of vulnerability we should anticipate terrorists will adapt and try to seek out another. it is a multigenerational threat in a war. for that reason we must use security as an ongoing process. one of the challenges i believe we have is to remind ourselves even with the death of osama bin laden and the success of capturing and killing terrorists around the globe, diminishing al qaeda's structure, it still exists. if i look at the past ten years if there was one word or group of words i don't want to change the we have to think differently about is the war on terror.
2:25 pm
terrorism is a tactic. it is tough to wage war against a tactic because that is a device used by those who have been opposed for centuries. it is a war against a belief system. theology of hatred. an evil ideology. eradication to meet benazir bhutto before she was assassinated and in preparation i read her speeches and comments. she observed one time that you can exiling man but not an idea. you can impress a man but not an idea. you can kill a man but not an idea. you can bring bin laden to justice but the idea, the ideology legal the belief system. as long as it has appealed to
2:26 pm
the smallest number of individuals in the broader muslim community of a billion plus the global surge of terrorism will be with us. we are more safe and secure. the threat remains. on september 12th, 2001, we were grieving but had a sense of unity and aggressive state of determination. everyday we learned a little more. more people working together to find security solutions and identify vulnerabilities. every day we get further away from the tragedy. we have to look over our shoulders from time to time and be mindful that terrorists do not arrest so we can wait. i dare say everybody in this room is wearing no wristwatch. terrorists have time. think about that. they are much more patient than we are. we are going to be at this for a
2:27 pm
while. we can deal with it. we have dealt with it but even though we are more secure the threat remains. we cannot underestimate the appeal of their belief system and their willingness to be patient in bringing the broader world to accept that belief system. that means in spite of significant progress we made much work remains to be done. we have strength and information sharing among allies and friends but we still saw an attempted christmas day bomber come close to the goals to avert information not being shared. very close to executing that individual's game plan. there's a lot of criticism directed at the department of homeland security at the time i came to the defense of secretary napolitano and felt justified in doing so.
2:28 pm
homeland security the consumer of information. it doesn't generate intelligence. it relies on intelligence of the law enforcement community to share that information. the fact of the matter remains this individual's father walked into the department of state, i believe my son has been radicalized in yemen and the intelligence community knows what is going on and who is leading the terrorist groups over there and people wondered how he could get on the plane. the state department never told the department of homeland security they yanked his visa. as good as homeland security has become it is not perfect. no institution of government is perfect. it is the consumer of information that can only act on information given to it. the information sharing process is good.
2:29 pm
i dare say from private conversations a lot of people around this country could get a little better. we need to create a culture of intelligence sharing where everyone is empowered to hit the send button. from the culture of the need to know to the twenty-first century culture of need to share. we are 60% there but not all the way there. how long have we talked about interoperable communications for first responders? it is a national disgrace. it is simply unbelievable in my mind that on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 knowing what transpired at the twin towers, the inability of these men and women who rushed in to save the
2:30 pm
lives of other americans and international visitors debtors--visitors and citizens and the 9/11 commission shared by two great americans, governor kean and lee hamilton. one of the highest priorities of the 9/11 commission was built and interoperable communications system for our first responders and we still haven't done it. i am a little agitated. you can write it down. we have the capacity. we have the technology but we don't have the political courage and focus of trying to help these men and women who we celebrate with speeches. if we are that concerned we better get on the fast track. i hate to think the eleventh anniversary will come and go without a foundation so these
2:31 pm
men and women have that interoperable communications system. think about the investments in the aftermath of 9/11 that improve the quality of safety and security of americans generally. we build a broadband system in response to 9/11 in recognition of what transpired in many instances before 9/11. the most visible catastrophic and horrific. you talk to folks who try to communicate after a hurricane goes through a community, broadband would improve the security of this country and enhance our ability to help fellow citizens in response to a terrorist attack or natural weather event and operability. ..
2:32 pm
>> so when people come into this country we take a digital photograph, take fingerprints. we've been doing it now for over six years. so we have a record of everybody that's come into this country by commercial aviation. i can't tell you today how many have overstayed their visa, who has never embedded the exit
2:33 pm
system. by the time congress stepped up and give the secretary the money, by the time the airlines cooperated, we built the exit system. we made a lot of progress instead of a lot of work to do. you could imagine several million visitors over the last couple of years, do you think anyone's has overstayed their visas? i can answer that question. do you know where they are? you know what they are doing? it would be easy to set all the folder builds we have yet to address in the 9/11 recommendations we get to make. but achieving these goals and the ones i just talked about requires the navigation of a federal system where urgency does not come easily, where politics, budgets and bureaucracy are involved. we still have more work to do. don't get me wrong. i think we've have made enormous progress over the past 10 years. we are undeniably resilient and undeniably safer and more
2:34 pm
secure. there are certain fundamental things we still need to pay attention to and have yet to do. as citizens were entitled to have expectations of our government relative to our security. what we cannot expect is that the government can create the fail-safe risk-free environment. that does not mean we must read every person as a potential terrorist, that every possible scenario must be explored. risk will be ever present and can never be completely eliminate. they must be managed. tip i had to john pistole and secretary napolitano, finally, finally at our airports, and we have to move incrementally, give credit where credit is due, they're a couple of airlines and the couple airports who have frequent fliers and we're working on a process to let them go through screening in a diff way, less income of the i have been pulled aside for screening
2:35 pm
eyed don't know how many times. i had a good time talk to the people at tsa. they're only doing what they been told to do under the circumstances but we need to get into the mindset of managing the risk, manage the risk. priorities have to be set and create must be made. that means went to balance homeland security. it's all going to be about trade-offs. i remember, i remember the big debate for several months was topic of the day, do we spend millions defending commercial airlines against shoulder-fired missiles, or to invest in nuclear detection technology? which one do you think is more important? which risk is more important? do you appropriate the money to complete the us-visit system or do you give more money to the states? do you choose among adding more leaders of security at chemical sites, or do you address the different security risk of mass
2:36 pm
transit, or do channel investments into health care or education? our fiscal realities you have to deal with. one of the only way she can do with it is prioritizing the risk in the world that understand that you cannot eliminate it. you have to manage it. as we all know, they needs and wants are limitless. resources are not. i was privilege of serving government elected governor, i mean government most of my life, elected government to intellectuals. i must tell you as a congressman or as governor, nobody ever walked into my office to lobby for less. a, gov, we had too much money last year. we'll take a 5% cut. the fact of the matter is with the fiscal realities where today we have to be more focused and more surgical and more thoughtful about the risk that are most immediate agents which we must protect, those that we
2:37 pm
must be concerned about but not necessarily to devote resources to deal with until he more appropriate time. this reality requires the public and private sector work together to manage the risk together. by sharing the responsibility, sharing talent, sharing resources across both sectors in all industries and significant areas of expertise. that responsibility is great and is very complex, obviously. i must say 10 years later it doesn't get any easier. but i do contest, where there is a will there's certainly a way. we know what we've been through and could go through again, and we are certainly far, far better prepared. and so asked the fight continues, so when we. so with each and every individual american. whether they're wearing a public service uniform, working in the private sector, or raising their families in communities across this country. i think we have plenty of leaders in this room. proud to be associated with you.
2:38 pm
i am reminded from time to time in the past 10 years that americans just don't live in fear, that's just not our nature. we live in freedom, and we will continue to work together to make sure nobody takes that freedom away. so i thank you for the opportunity to share these few thoughts with you this morning. tank you very much. [applause] >> -- thank you very much. i'm going to break with protocol a little bit. i've a couple of things i want to share with you. if you don't mind. the 10 years since 9/11, there's been a lot of changes in this country. we've learned a lot about the threats we face, a lot about the terrorists we face. mother nature has thrown some pretty tough things at us as well. i think we're smarter, more secure and more secure. we've made a lot of partnerships. was also a lot of people moving in and out of the homeland security family, holding
2:39 pm
different positions up everywhere, public sector, private sector. and with all this happened with all the constant changes, there are certain things that have been constant and there have been small group of individuals who have been there from day one. ann, you have been one of those individuals. you leave the chamber's national security team. you've been there from the very beginning, started with the national cabinet association. you brought those experiences and talents to the chamber. you work with my friends. you worked with fema, and so it's nice when you get up to ann here and she is at the chamber and she has hosted many of these different events, but i thought you ought to know from day one since september 11, 2001, a constant and broader family, the broader homeland security family has been our leader.
2:40 pm
ann, thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up live on the c-span networks this afternoon in about an hour and 20 minutes we'll hear from national transportation safety board chairman. >x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?/
2:41 pm
2:42 pm
2:43 pm
>> remarks moments ago he secretary janet napolitano. she spoke about the role of the public and private sector in making the u.s. more secure. this is a 35 minutes. >> is always a pleasure and an honor to be with you. i think the three of us who have served as secretaries of homeland security, governor ridge, secretary chertoff, myself, we share a special bond. i think in terms of the
2:44 pm
multi-mission aspect of the department, and building the department even as we deal with everything, from natural disasters the terrorism, two other source of man-caused disasters. so we run the gamut. we have multiple missions. it is now the third largest department of the federal government, the department of homeland security. so governor ridge, secretary ridge, thank you very much for your service to the nation in this regard. and i think i shout out is required. [applause] >> i'd also like to thank the chamber of commerce for inviting me back to be here and to address the national security task force. going back to my time as the governor of arizona, in
2:45 pm
continuing now at dhs, i have always believed that we can achieve our goals more quickly and more efficiently when the public and the private sectors work together. and nowhere is this more important in this day and age when we must keep our nation, our citizens, our businesses safe from a variety of threats. and we must do so in a fiscally constrained environment. so we must work together. and homeland security means that every part of our society must play its role to make our nation more secure and more resilient. and by resilient, what i mean is to be able to quickly respond to a disaster and quickly get right back up on the horse and get back to work.
2:46 pm
and we must do this, we must secure the nation. we must be resilient, and we must work one person, one hometown, one community at a time. now, as has already been mentioned next month is the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. and i think there's no question but that our country is stronger and more secure against that type of attack than it was a decade ago. we have bounced back and we bounced back very strongly from what was the worst attack ever on our soil. we have made progress on every front to protect ourselves. indeed, a few weeks ago the department released a report outlining with specifics the actual progress that has been made by the department of
2:47 pm
homeland security, and by our many partners in fulfilling specific recommendations of the 9/11 commission that were directed at the department. this means strides over the last decade to protect our nation against large-scale attacks or disasters, to protect our critical infrastructure and our cybernetwork's, and to engage a broader range of americans in the shared responsibility for security. and, indeed, our experience over the last 10 years has made us smarter about the evolving threats we faced and how best to deal with them. we have used the knowledge and our experience to make our nation and communities more resilient, not just to terrorist attacks but also to threats and disastrous of all kinds. and we've done so in the context
2:48 pm
of making sure that we also protect and preserve our fundamental rights as citizens of the united states. so as part of our efforts we continue to increase information sharing to state and local law enforcement agencies, and to the general public. and we do so because of the fundamental principle that all of us have a role to play in thwarting potential attacks and reporting suspicious activity to the authorities. as you will hear more later, the teams where individuals are concerned is "see something, say something." and that is easy to remember. and something that we hope the american populace begins to incorporate just as a matter of if you see something, you say something. now, the role of the private
2:49 pm
sector is very significant, which is one of the reasons why i find it important to address this group on a regular basis. with our private sector partners, we have increased preparedness for disasters, and we have strengthened the resilience, particularly of our most vulnerable critical infrastructures. two weeks ago dhs and fema and northcom partnered with u.s. chamber and the american red cross to present the first annual resilience conference, furthering our efforts to participate and partner with the private sector to sustain a safe and secure homeland. together now with the world customs organization, with the international maritime organization, and with the international civil aviation organization, deputy ceo, imo
2:50 pm
icao, and also with the united postal union we have initiate a major international campaign to better secure the global supply chain. this means that when a good enters the stream of commerce, and ultimately enters our shores, that we are working to make sure that all along that route where it crosses international boundaries, where different personnel may be involved, that security measures are being taken and that they are becoming more and more standardized as we work through the global economy, and work toward the fact that we have to deal with our homeland security. it means also international security in this regard. we are working with the private sector, and with international partners to expand and integrate trusted traveler and trusted shipper programs to facilitate legitimate travel and trade, while also enhancing security.
2:51 pm
what does this mean? what it means is that we are adopting and working to implement risk-based, intel-based strategies, both for people, passengers, and for good, cargo. both internationally and domestically. and what does this mean for practical purposes? it means that ultimately we want to be able to expand programs like old entry that allow those, for example, business travelers who are traveling internationally and frequently to have, and to process this alliance expeditiously. some of you may already have your global entry card, have used a global entry system. everybody i know that has used it has been more than pleased. our private sector office within the department has produced an
2:52 pm
online resource catalog to make it easier for our private sector partners to find and utilize the information they need, from bombing prevention resources, to first responder communication technologies. and this year we launched the private sector preparedness, or ps prep program to enable private sector companies to improve their own preparedness through the implementation of business continuity and emergency preparedness plans that meet certain standards. not every plan is all that it needs to be to really provide the security that you need. the ps-prep available online is designed to give you that information. we have also launched this year a loan executive program to enable top level executive talent from the private sector to share their expertise with the department, particularly
2:53 pm
with respect to filling certain discrete needs. we recognize as part of the partnership, we need to have in the private sector, that there are executives that if they will be loaned to us for a while, it's helpful to us. and quite frankly it's also helpful to the private sector to have more on the ground exchange about what really happens in the department on an ongoing basis. now, as i have mentioned before, the public has an important role to play here. because everyone has a role to play in security. it is a shared responsibility. of particular importance and where the private sector can continue to play a key role is in efforts to increase public vigilance and awareness of threats, and the reporting of
2:54 pm
suspicious activities to the authorities. why is this important? because time and time again we have seen that an alert public, including business owners, when they notify the authorities, when something they encounter just hasn't seemed quite right. and these efforts, when somebody has seen something and said something, have actually helped prevent crime and terrorism. it was to alert street vendors in new york city who notified police when they saw a suspicious vehicle near times square last night, and their actions help stop an attack in progress. and it actually helped us find the perpetrator. in january, alert city workers in spokane, washington, reported a suspicious backpack along the parade route, and thwarted what almost certainly would have been a deadly bombing on martin luther king day.
2:55 pm
more recently, the owner of a gun store near fort hood called authorities when an individual, acting in his tour was behaving in a suspicious manner, his actions help prevent a potential terrorist attack against our troops that could have taken many, many lives. and those are just three examples that have been in the open source media. there are many others as well. so the importance of public awareness in fighting crime, in fighting terrorism, in preventing violence is critical. and that's why over the past two years we have been strengthening and expanding one of the most successful public awareness programs in our country. "if you see something, say something" campaign. it's a very simple and effective message, a very simple and effective program. first implemented by new york city's metropolitan transportation authority to
2:56 pm
raise public awareness of indicators of terrorism and crime. and to emphasize the importance of reporting to proper law enforcement authorities, and to do that in federal buildings, transit systems, to do it if you're in a sports venue, a major retail venue, an entertainment venue. so we have a number of partners now in the "see something, say something" campaign. including the ncaa, nba, the national football league, the indianapolis 500, retailers such as wal-mart, the mall of america, the american hotel and lodging association, the general aviation industry, among many others. and today i am proud to announce we have a new partner in the "see something, say something" campaign, and that is the united states chamber of commerce. they are encouraging all of
2:57 pm
their members to utilize the new public service announcement that we are unveiling today, and to find ways to partner with dhs to get this message out. we are working with the chamber now to develop materials that could be used in regional offices across the country, and also within particular communities. so i would like to congratulate the chamber on joining the campaign. i look forward to the support and to working with you on this important initiative. so, today we're going to continue to "see something, say something" expansion. we continue to add partners, new materials, and a new ad campaign. and today we are releasing a new set of 30-second national public service announcements designed to engage the public in identifying and reporting suspicious activity. each public service announcement presents a different scenario
2:58 pm
involving a suspicious activity, what to do and how to notify the appropriate authorities. we will be showing you one of the 30-second psa is in a moment. that's a little teaser there. so it will be up here. and i would like in connection with that, to issue a challenge to you. my hope and my charge to you today is to help us spread this public awareness message. you can do it in a number of ways. when you return home to your businesses and your communities, you can share the psas with your colleagues, with your employees, and you can help us reach an even broader audience by showing them in your own venues, by showing them in things like stores, businesses that you operate, linking them to company websites so that employees have access to them,
2:59 pm
including them in your own marketing campaign. more directly, you could partner with us to bring to "see something, say something" campaign right into your company or business. quite frankly, we need all hands on deck in this effort. you know as members of the private sector, and i know in my role as secretary, how hard it is to get a message across the general public and get them thinking in that way, right? what we're trying to do is say homeland security, no government department, no matter how large or well-run can do it by itself. and the private sector, no matter how large or well-run, can do it by itself. it has to be a partnership, and the public has to be involved. and by these simple campaigns, and a simple straightforward message, we think that emphasis will indeed help us ensure that we have all hands on deck.
3:00 pm
so i think as governor, secretary ridge has described, we have done much in the last 10 years to better our country, to keep our nation safe. and we have a lot of efforts underway right now. the credit for this is widespread, a lot of it should go quite frankly to the men and women who are on the front lines working these issues every day, including our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, including our first responders, including our many industry and ngo partners, volunteers, state, local, tribal governments, the list goes on. when we all work together, what we call homeland security is truly a national enterprise with a whole of nation participation. then we increase homeland security and homeland resilience.
3:01 pm
as was previously described, the kind of threats we now face, from terrorism, from threats in cyberspace, to pandemic disease, to natural disasters of all types, demand that we strengthen our capacities working together. none of us can do it by ourselves. it also demands the continued vigilance of the american people. so today, we are stronger than we were on 9/11. there are no guarantees in this world, and i'm not here to offer guarantees. there are lots of things that are threatened that can happen, but what we can do is maximize our ability to prevent an attack from occurring, minimizing the ability of such an attack having a large impact and increase our ability to respond with efficiency and effectiveness, and to get, as i said earlier, to get right back up on the
3:02 pm
horse and back in the business of the country. so now i'd like to have played for you, for the very first time, the 30-second television psa. there are 15-second versions. there are radio psas. they are all available at something. something. so let's set aside 30 seconds and see the new spot. >> maybe you see something suspicious, but you don't want to get involved.
3:03 pm
it's nothing, you think. can you be sure? if you see something, say something. report suspicious activity to local authorities. >> what do you think? [applause] >> so, again, thank you for what you have done today. thank you for what you're going to continue to do, help us spread the word. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will take a few questions, is that all right? please identify yourself. wait for the mic to come to you. >> any questions? [inaudible]
3:04 pm
>> no, i think -- but you point out a valuable thing which is, we want the public to live with information but not to live in fear. and quite frankly i think when they have information, that helps reduce the level of fear. that's one of the reasons we matured out of the color code and ended it, and instead substituted a national threat advisory system, which is designed when we have specific, credible intelligence about a threat, to be able to go to the public with the information that we have. what we want them to do themselves and for the families, and then where they can get ongoing information. the national threat advisory system has replaced the color code, and the idea is with information, you are empowered. "see something, say something" is the same thing. we've had it in enough places
3:05 pm
over the last two years now that we have not seen it abused by the public. so now it's more of a matter of public awareness, what we call situational awareness. >> are you going to moderate? thanks. >> thank you. thank you for this opportunity. my question is, secretary napolitano, you mentioned the u.s. a safer to attack like 911. but you think it's safer to counterattack like all kinds of terrorism attack and ideology? thank you. >> thank you. what i think we are seeing is the evolution of the kinds of attacks against our country. so, i mean, if you were to take the 9/11 attack and break it down into all the steps that need to be taken by those
3:06 pm
terrorists to weapon eyes basically commercial aircraft and fly them into the world trade center, the pentagon and notably the one that was crashed into shanksville, we have a layered system of security that would give us multiple ways in which to interact that large complicated plot. so what we see instead now our smaller plots involving fewer people, so they're much more difficult to intercept, to pick up information about in time to intercept. we've been doing an awfully -- this been an awful lot of good work done, but we are seeing smaller plots using a variety of techniques. they derived internationally, but we are also seeing a rise of activities by individuals were actually in the country. and their acting by themselves.
3:07 pm
and that, that kind of attack is the most difficult to prevent. because there's nothing to intercept and so forth. so you have to go and use other methods. one of the of the message -- methods is for every citizen of the united states, every person of the united states to have awareness of their surroundings and feel comfortable in reporting suspicious activity to the authorities. [inaudible] >> thank you very much. since 9/11, as you mentioned you've seen an expansion of the government powers to protect american citizens from the threat of terrorism as those expansion of bureaucracy, whether that be through fisa a memo the patriot act. can you sketch out a sinner we think the federal government would not meet some of the extra great powers? and a scenario when some cases the united states could return to a pre-9/11 footing?
3:08 pm
>> no. [laughter] i mean, look, i think realistically we have to say look, environments change over time, and 9/11 was the signal of a changing environment that we now have to deal with, i think, throughout the foreseeable future. and what is that change? that change is the threat against the united states motivated by various ideologists, terrorists, others, other ideologies as well, aimed at trying to commit a crime, motivated by the ideology that will have an undue impact on our society, either economically or, and/or by a number of individuals. so i and we at the department, we run this assuming that is the
3:09 pm
environment. and then the questions presented are okay, what are the best things we can do consistent with american values of civil liberties and privacy? so one of the things that we have actually in the department right now is our own civil liberties offers. and we examine all of our programs and activities from that perspective. we also have, i think one of only two privacy officers that are presidentially appointed within the federal government, i think the other one is at the department of justice. and the privacy office analyzes from a privacy perspective all of the activities that we are doing. so i think we live in an environment where terrorism and those sorts of threats are part of what we have to deal with. and we also, however, want to do so in a way that is respectful
3:10 pm
of and protects the civil liberties and values that we fight to continue. so it's about balance that we strike on a day in day out basis. and as we mentioned earlier, "if you see something, say something" campaign, it's been on amtrak here it's been a minute to you. you probably heard my voice if you ever ride the metro. it's been an ncaa all of the march madness venues have "see something, say something" campaign to running in the arenas. it's in the status. it's been in shopping malls. other places where people congregate and gather. now we are taking it to the next level which is to say let's focus on individuals and see if we can make sure that the individuals of the united states acknowledge the shared
3:11 pm
responsibility for security, and acknowledge and incorporate and value the "see something, say something" campaign. that is really designed to protect all of us. >> i can take one or two more. i don't know what your schedule is. i know what i have to do. so i would rather stay here. [laughter] >> let's do two more. >> joe mckinney. we have acted to some very severe issues, but where do we stand on the opportunity to reciprocate the requirements that we have placed on our overseas trading partners and perform the same services for them? we have been traditionally and importing company -- country, but we have goals of vastly increasing our exports as a jobs
3:12 pm
program and what have you. is there any thought that perhaps it would be a good idea if we were able to offer those same types of scanning services that we insist others around the world perform for us, that we would perform for them? >> we have had discussions, and this kind of goes to the global supply chain program that he mentioned briefly in my remarks, and it is very much a receptacle type program in terms of standards for inspecting goods and, you know, looking at when they first enter the stream of commerce, you know, the folders, but insiders, all the places where different personnel might touch a container or vessel, what would be needed in to make sure data wasn't something inserted in their that was a
3:13 pm
weapon, something that could be remotely detonated, or the like. into the global supply chain strategy which does involve all of these international organizations which covers about 180-190 countries is designed to make sure that we are all using the same sorts of standards. and you are right to say that there can't i think, over time, i think be able to do some joint leveraging and sharing of some of those responsibilities. >> madam secretary, governor ridge spoke to the entry-exit system and the back window when people come into the country and when they get here. one of things we don't understand is when they leave and i wonder if you speak to your vision of state management and when you think we might see a solution for the exit part? >> right. actually we are far along now. let me find some of the progress
3:14 pm
we've made just the past few months. one of the things we did is we have gone back and look at the original -- there was an original estimate of 1.1 million these overstays in the country. we have now gone back and looked at and systematize this and cross-referenced other records that we have, and we been able to reduce that number in half. and then we've been able to go through with other systems and reduce that even further. and one of the things that is different now than existed when the initial u.s. entry-exit system was conceived is that we have much, much more biographical data as opposed to biometric. but with many, many more databases of different things.
3:15 pm
that are now appropriately linked that can be searched that enable us from it by a graphic standpoint to keep track of when people actually leave the country and to know better where people are who have overstayed their visas. and then to be able to prioritize who amongst those need to be touched by law enforcement first. so those who have overstayed who also appear on suspected security or terrorist risk lives who are fugitives from justice who have outstanding warrants, that sort of thing. so we been able to clear the list. we are in the process, and i think we have basically completed the process, some prioritizing the remainders, and then the fact that we have many more ways of either graphically ascertain when somebody has left the country. we have a different ability now,
3:16 pm
and the cost of having what was originally conceived, which was a universal biometric exit system, the costs, we piloted it. we piloted it in several places. and the cost is very, very, very high. we believe, our analysis demonstrates that with the kind of data we now collect, that we now have organized, that we now have systematized and with the ability to search very quickly because we've got to move millions of these sometimes daily, that we get virtually the same results. it's just much more economically efficient. in this day and age with the pressure on the fiscal system the way it is, addressing a problem and figure out an answer, that gets us where we need to go, that is cheaper and
3:17 pm
as efficient, i think that's one of the challenges we have. and that's what we have attained. so yes, cognizant of the problem as it was set before us earlier today, but great, great progress has been made. all right? thank you all very much. "see something, say something." [applause] >> vice president joe biden is in east asia this week as part of the obama administration's efforts to renew the u.s. role in asia.
3:18 pm
3:19 pm
3:20 pm
>> were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda. not taliban, but ordinary pakistan's who feel that their religion is threatened, that the country is becoming too secular. that the islamic values are under attack and that blasphemy which is anything that insults the prophet or islam is something to be defended with your life. >> "washington post" correspondent pamela constable sunday night on c-span skua day. >> all this week we've been bring you a series of 10 -- you can see that on a website tomorrow at 9 a.m. we're live from the national crime and punishment museum here in washington for a look at forensics and profiling. you can catch out inside the fbi
3:21 pm
series each night in the 7:00 hour right here on c-span2. coming up next a discussion on infrastructure spending and job growth with former pennsylvaniau governor ed rendell. this is about 40 minutes spent now on yourue screen is governor annnsylvll, former governor of pennsylvania, two-term governorv he is now co-chair of a groupre called building america'suilding future. future. what is baf, governor grendell? guest: in january of 2008, gov. schwarzenegger, gov. bloomberg of new york city, and myself, started this organization dedicated to try to convince the country and the congress to do a long-term infrastructure revitalization program. interestingly, at that time, almost every developed nation in the world had either undergone or was presently undergoing a decade-long infrastructure revitalization program.
3:22 pm
spending real dollars going infrastructure at scale, not only bolstering the short-term economy of the countries but the long-term economic competitiveness. our report that we release last monday was called "falling behind-falling apart." 20% of our roads are inferior. the site of engineers ranked our nation's infrastructure as a d and the roads and bridges d- minus. in 2005, the world economic forum -- world economic forum said we have the best interest of and the world and now we are 15th best. the air transport infrastructure is 32nd best in the world behind countries like malaysia and panama. in ports, 22nd. we are falling apart and behind
3:23 pm
our competitor nations and by falling behind, it is going to cost our economy and our economic competitiveness in the long run. mayor bloomberg and i dedicated to try to convince the people as well as our legislates doors that we have to do something and do it very quickly and at a significant scale over the long term this next decade. host: how much do we currently spend on transportation infrastructure -- and specifically when you talk about infrastructure, transportation infrastructure? guest: it is and it isn't. we talk about infrastructure and rebuilding it, we are talking about more than just transportation but talk about broadband, the electrical grid, the dams and levees. a lot of things that go into infrastructure behind -- beyond transportation. but to answer the transportation question, the congress around four years ago -- there was the surface transportation reform
3:24 pm
commission and they found we spend $84 billion a year, state, local, federal, and a little private money, and infrastructure, transportation. they recommended that we needed to spend $220 billion a year, so at an increase of about 140 billion just for transportation infrastructure. at baf, we think everything put together -- school buildings, you name it -- we need to spend an additional $200 billion a year. host: where would this $200 billion come from? guest: the good news it is not all federal money, by any means. a lot of it would come from the infrastructure bank the president has correctly talked about. if you fund it at $25 billion or $30 billion it could boost $500 billion of private-sector funding. american had funds and investors are ready to invest in infrastructure because it's got a stable return.
3:25 pm
chinese funds are looking to invest an american and the structure, and european funds. so, we think the $500 billion figure is easily obtainable. secondly, state and local governments picked up about 45% to 50% of the overall bill. thirdly, what i would do is, you know there is $1.40 trillion in taxes owed to the united states by foreign companies who are holding that money abroad. most of those countries want to repatriate -- they don't want to pay 34%. they are looking to pay 5%. 5% is too little. what i would do is have them bring it home at 15%, put all the money into our infrastructure program and that would produce another $220 billion. and if we spent $200 billion additional a year, this is the fact of people have to think about. according to every expert, including our own transportation
3:26 pm
department, $1 billion of infrastructure spending creates 25,000 jobs -- jobs at the roadside, waste water treatment facilities, but also jobs back at factories producing this deal, asphalt, concrete, the timber, that is necessary to do the things we need to do to repair and revitalize our infrastructure. so, if you do that, $200 million of additional spending -- $200 billion of additional spending would produce 5 million new jobs in 10 years and that is the single most important thing we can do to revive the american economy in the short run and in the long run to make it competitive niche -- competitive. i was listening to mark from idaho who was complaining about a lot of the first stimulus money being unspent, and in most cases the money was spent and spent wisely. the president himself said it was a little slow getting off the mark. there is a solution. interestingly, when the governors, all 50, met with the
3:27 pm
president a month after he was elected, before he had become president, we met in philadelphia to talk about stimulus -- we all advocated strong infrastructure spending. the last stimulus did not spend nearly enough on infrastructure -- $69 billion out of $850 billion, 7%. it secondly, we urged the president to do something of use it or lose it. meaning, you gave the state a time period -- pennsylvania got a billion dollars. you say to pennsylvania if half of that money is not spent, if the job and hirings had not begun in four months, you lose that have. and if it is not done in 67 months, you lose that half. and it gets transferred to states who are using their money quickly and effectively. use it or lose it. it is amazing, if you tell a contractor i have a big contract for you -- that is the good news. the bad news is you got to get your bid in in one month as
3:28 pm
opposed to three and you cannot dillydally around. if you order that bid, you have to start working in two months, you would be surprised how fast the respond. host: the gas tax is 18.4%. in your view, should be raised? where does it currently go? guest: first of all, we don't think you can raise the gas tax right now just because the economy is so bad and it would be difficult. but we do believe over long run it should be raised. it should be raised by a significant level and we should index it to inflation. interestingly, peter, building america's future poll found that most americans think that the gas tax is indexed to inflation. that it goes up automatically each and every year. it is not true. the gas tax has not gone up since 1993. there is virtually nothing that we do or spend money on in our
3:29 pm
society that has not gone up significantly in the last 18 years. and the gas tax -- when the economy gets better, it should be raised. it probably should be phased in over two or three years. but we do need to raise the gas tax -- again, in the short run. because a long run we have to find a better way to pay for transportation because cars will be using less gas, cars that aren't going to be running on gas at all and we estimate sure they are paying their fair share. but in the end, you have to pay. you get what you pay for. interestingly, people seem to look at infrastructure a little different from other spending. in the november election, november 2010, arguably the most anti-spending conservative election we have had in my lifetime, 64% of the infrastructure ballot referendums were approved by the voters. even though it meant either additional taxes, additional tolling or borrowing -- 64%, in
3:30 pm
red states as well as blue states. charleston, south carolina, the rightist -- reddish devoted to increase the taxes twice, once to rize port and thenning second, to help repair a very vital bridge that comes into the city that's important for the city's economy as well as its quality of life, and we vice president touched on because we've been talking about jobs in the economy, how important infrastructure is to our quality of life and even more to public safety. how many bridges have to collapse? how many levies in places like cedar rapids and new orleans have to break? ham pipelines have to blow up before we get around to doing what we ought to be doing. >> host: if you would like to talk with former pennsylvania governor ed rendell, now head of
3:31 pm
building america's future about infrastructure spending and job creation. 624-07604 all others for the independents out there, tweet in at or an e-mail is the e-mail address. president obama talked on monday about one aspect of infrastructure spending. this was in minnesota on monday. >> no one has been hit harder [speaking in native tongue] -- no one has been hit harder than construction workers. they are lining up to find jobs. let's rebuild america. we could be rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and parks all across america right now.
3:32 pm
put hundreds of thousands of folks to work right now. there's a bill sitting in congress now to set up an infrastructure bank to get that moving attracting private sector dollars, not just public dollars. congress needs to move. >> host:ment your comment about the infrastructure bank proposal. >> guest: well, what the president said is if we do infrastructure right, it's not hundreds of thousands of jobs, but millions of jobs. the infrastructure bank is important. number one because it would make decisions on projects of regional and national significance, make the decisions made on mart, not the old political system of who has the most powerful congressman or senator. that's important to get public confidence back in. number two, as the president said, access private sector dollars. they want to come in. they want to invest in american infrastructure projects where
3:33 pm
there's a rate of return, and the infrastructure bank would be the vehicle to do it. number three, the president talks about capitalizing at $5 billion a year for the next five years. that's important. there has to be federal participation to act as the leverage for building the product funds in. it's absolutely needed and necessary, and the president should do it quickly. i've got a great person to head up the infrastructure bank, not that the president listens to me, but former senator george was a republican, former mayor, governor, knows infrastructure, is a big infrastructure advocate, and would be a great person to chair the bank. >> host: first call comes from st. louis, mississippi. cur toc on the republican line, you're on the rare. >> caller: how are you doing? >> host: please, go ahead with your comment, sir. >> caller: well, i'm seeing some pretty good progress along
3:34 pm
interstate 10 from baton rouge to texas, and i do -- i could not agree with you more about the bridges. the bridge in lake charles on interstate 10 definitely needs to be replaced, and you can tell it's starting to crack and crumble, but i mean, it's the year 2011, and we don't need to have, you know, just four lane interstates. there should be six by now. >> guest: can i interrupt for a second? crore kurtis, you don't know how right you are. the vehicles on the road, the trucks and cars on the road increased by 103%, but our lane capacity increased by 4%. it's insane for us to what we're doing. i think people, cur toc is on the republican lin, and even tea
3:35 pm
party heads knows the difference between government spending that is noneffective and investments in the long-term infrastructure. there's no question about it, and i think the president can get infrastructure and some form of investment now to create jobs in that bill where we're going to do deficit reduction if everyone in the congress and the president himself is serious about deficit reduction. to the budget ox, we give serious long term deficit reduction around the $4 trillion mark, and there's no sacred cows. we have to raise a little bit of revenue. i don't think anybody, even the tea partyers, that 38% of american corporations pay no federal tax. 38% of the corporations, we got to change that, and then we have to -- in the short term as well as the long term, invest in our future. invest in things like infrastructure, like research that are going to create decent american jobs.
3:36 pm
>> host: vaw tweets into you -- governor, we're out of money. >> guest: no, we're not, no, we're not. if we do the right things we have to do to reduce the deficit and cut spending, we can at the same time invest. every economist looked at that. the simpson-bowles deficit commission, allen simpson, one the most conservative senators we've had, but brightest and smartest, say we have to invest. we have to keep investing because right now, we know people think we're out of money, and i don't think we are, but it's a question of how we spend on and what we do it on, but right now for average american, they are more interested in jobs, reviving the economy, getting their brother-in-law back to work and getting their son on the payroll. that's what they're interested in first and foremost. the realization, everyone
3:37 pm
listening to me, the most important thing to realize is we can do both. we can do enough investment right now to stimulate the economy and put people back to work. that's this much. if we do deficit reduction at this much. we can do both, and we should do both. >> host: pat, independent from virginia. you're on with former governor ed rendell. >> caller: governor? >> guest: good morning, pat. >> caller: hi, i love pennsylvania. several years ago i made a truck trip up through altoona to niagara falls, and went up 219, and you have to, at that time at least, you had to go through 100 small towns with 15-25 miles per hour speed limits. are you familiar with that
3:38 pm
area? >> guest: very much so. it's interesting you mention that. i give a lot of state money, a lot of what's called appalachian regional money to build up and eliminate those by passes to build up 219 from the border all the way up about 200 or so miles up towards the new york state border. it's a perfect example of a road that needs to be built, not just for our quality of life, but to make that whole 219 region economically competitive. the state invested in building that road, and we're starting to do it, and we could use federal help to finish it. the interesting thing is i was accused in pennsylvania of being a big spender. i did spend money. i would consider it investing, and i invested on infrastructure, but today, pennsylvania has a 7.5% unemployment rate, two points lower than the national average
3:39 pm
and lower than any industrial state in the union. it's not an accident. >> guest: would you consider a toll road for the 219? >> host: we're get an answer to that. pat, are you a semitruck driver? >> caller: retired now, but i had a smaller truck, but the towns were so close together and the speed limits so low that it took forever to get up there, and then i never did see a nationally advertised restaurant, motel. >> host: pat, are you in favor of toll roads as a consumer of roads? >> caller: yes, i would have paid big time not to have to go through the small towns with the slow speed limits. >> host: thank you. >> guest: pat, you're absolutely right. everyone out there, you get what you pay for. you know that when you shop for a tv set, a washing machine, a car, you get what you pay for.
3:40 pm
you spend $11,000 for a car, it won't run the same as a $28,000 car. you get what you pay for. if we want a first class infrastructure for the quality of our lives, public safety, and for economy and pat made a great point. you build a significant 219 and we tried to build at least the latter part of it without tolls, but if you build a significant road, you'd see the economic development the national chains, the restaurants, ect. grow up all along that corridor, and it would be great for business, great for the local people as well, and toll is a small price to pay for that. also, toll roads, when you toll a road, that means, pete, that you can, in fact, get private dollars to invest and help you with the build out because private dollars need a return on investment, and that return can come from tolling. >> host: governor rendell us
3:41 pm
living on the east coast have driven the peages turnpike at one point or another in our life. where does the money go that's collected on that turnpike? >> guest: 100% goes back to the turnpike itself, a small part to the administration, but it's for the upkeep and building new ramps and stuff like that. when i first became governor, the turnpike commission said, governor, we need to raise tolls. we haven't raised tolls since 1991. i said, okay, that's reasonable. what will you do with the toll money? 100% goes into fixing the turnpike and maintains ramps. the pennsylvania turnpike is the largest, i think the oldest turnpike in the country, but close to the largest continuous road, so i said, fine, how much do you want to raise it? they said 41%. i said 41% are you crazy?
3:42 pm
they said that's what it is if we raise it consistent with inflation to 1991. i checked, they were right. i gave them the approval. i got seven negative letters. to give a frame of reference, pete, when we stopped black fly spraying in pennsylvania, we got 2500 negative letters. >> host: next call from rhode island. high, laura, democrat's line. >> caller: good morning, thank you for c-span, and governor, an honor to speak with you. i'm a big fan and supporter of infrastructure. if you could, i would like you to expand a little bit and speak to the importance of broadband, particularly for economic development in small rural communities like ours. i think it's really critical. >> guest: good question. good question, and the president has said he wants 98% of america to be connected by broadband, and he's right, and we're not
3:43 pm
close to that, particularly in royal areas, and it really holds back rural areas economically. we need to build out the broadband sector. the private sector can do it, and this is not a knock, i'm a fan of the private sector, but the private sector goes where there's profits to be made, and in a rural area, there's not enough customers for them to make a profit, so they either have to be compelled to do it, or there has to be some incentives for them to do it, and that's part of what we need in an infrastructure build out. there's no question. there's new technology, a company called light square that i've worked with that tries to use satellites to bring broadband coverage to 98% of the country. the at&t, t-mobile merger is supposed by at&t uses the part of the spectrum that t-mobile
3:44 pm
didn't use. whatever it is, we need broadband to everybody part of the country. it's a good question. we also need, laura, it's not popular to talk about, but we need high speed rail, not everywhere in the country, not the 80% coverage the president says, but we need it at least in three corridors where i believe it would pay for itself. one is the california coastline. two is chicago out to several midwest cities, and three is washington to boston. it averages 70 miles per hour which is low speed, maybe mid speed. it makes money. can you imagine if we had a high speed rail line that averaged 160-170 miles per hour that went at top speeds of 240-250 like in europe in asia and get to washington to new york in an hour and 20 minutes? no one would take the shuttle anymore.
3:45 pm
it would do wonders for the air transport system and bring america to the 20th century. americans who travel to europe say, governor, what's wrong with us? why does the little country of spain have trains that, you know, go 220 miles per hour? there's nothing like that here. the chinese are building and spending $300 billion a year to build out a high speed rail network. it's nuts. >> host: governor rendell spent years as mayor of philadelphia, the national democratic committee chair in 2000. governor, the president has talked about this speech he will be giving after labor day on jobs. what's your advice to him? >> guest: well, number one, heavily on infrastructure. use it or lose it. that's the way we have the quickest impact. number two, do infrastructure in the long term planning, and then
3:46 pm
number three, most importantly of all, wrap the investment program, and i call it investment -- the job creation program. wrap that in a big package that calls for serious deficit reduction, and that means across the board, no sacred cows. will people be upset at the entitlement programs? sure, but some have to be looked at. you don't have to do it to affect people in the programs now or people to be in them soon. you can do it over the long term. simpson-bowles recommended changes in medicare and social security not in effect until 2050. i'd did it earlier than that because we need a significant impact, but if you do it, put the jobs bill into significant deficit reduction where, by the way, we also raised revenue, close loopholes, tea parties and everybody else wants to see the loopholes close.
3:47 pm
let's close them. chris grover has done a lot of unintentional damage to the country. there's revenue that needs to be raised, spending cuts to be made. if it's all together in that speech, the president certainly will catch the nation's imagination. he'll look like a leader, be a leader, and then it's up to the congress to forget about politics and do something to put americans to work. >> host: would like like to clarify your comments about hillary clinton running in 2012? >> guest: 2016. >> host: 2016. >> guest: the interviewer asked if i thought hillary hillary clinton would run for president again. i said possibly and believe probably in 2016. sthees a loyal sporter of the president. i know from talking to her that she believes the president's done a good job. she also says she's not going to run again for any public office, and i believe she's telling the
3:48 pm
truth for 2011, but after the first term of the president is over, if hillary clinton steps down and teaches or does something else, i think those of us who care about her and thinks she'd be a great president, will not have the chance to do so. >> host: next call on infrastructure spending, virginia, olivia, republican line. >> caller: i'm a strong republican, and i've been moved by you because you listen to your constituents, and i'm pleased your on this station this morning. i have a question, three little comments to make that i wish you would address. one is the boston fiasco where they said they'd spend $3 billion and it turned out to cost $15 billion and still growing, still having to make money on that. the idea is that if you say you only have to spend three, then people will approve of it, and
3:49 pm
then they just increasing the amount. i think that issue needs addressing. it's standard operating procedure for construction companies. the second thing is i don't understand the infrastructure bank. i do believe in public-private partnerships, and i wish you could explain that further, and also i'm so sad that you don't have some republicans on your committee. i think that you've got some very strong democrats who understand the need, but there are republicans who do too, and i wish you would encourage some of your republican friends to join you in this effort. >> host: governor rendell? >> guest: i'll do it in reverse order. in fact, governor schwarzenegger, of course, was a republican. mayor bloomberg had been a republican, became an independent by 2008, and i was the only democrat on the three who chair the group, but we
3:50 pm
enlisted a lot of members, in fact, scott smith who is the republican mayor of mesa, arizona, and the vice chair of the u.s. conference of mayors, we authored several op-ed pieces that are run around the country, and we do have a number of republican people who are part of building america's future, and as i said, people like jim inhofe, a conservative, has been preaching on spending on infrastructure and wants to spend carefully and wisely, but there's republicans who get the issue, get it loud and clear, and she's right, it's got to be bipartisan. infrastructure has been traditionally a big republican issue. secondly, she talked about the infrastructure bank. the infrastructure bank is not for the ordinary road paving or bridge rebuilding. that money would still come
3:51 pm
through the federal transportation agent and go out to the states by formula, and the states, the local, what are called mpos, the meeting planning organizations, would determine how that money is spent like it is normally. the infrastructure bank, let's say there are $25 billion of government money in there. that money would be used for credit assistance to write down interest on loans, maybe a few rare occasions, grants, but it would be loans mostly. let's say there's a project where, say michigan decide they need to build a whole new highway. they are willing to toll it, but they need up front money from the private sector. the infrastructure bank finds out who in the private sector is interested in doing that, work with michigan to leverage private sector investment, and the bank, itself, might loan michigan money so it could pay
3:52 pm
down the interest rate on its bonds or help with private sector putting in the last money that's necessary, let's say the private sector was willing to inspect 80% of the cost and michigan 18% of the cost. they could loan michigan the last 5%, that money to be repaid by the tolls itself. let's go to los angeles. you know, peter, they voted to increase their sales tax by half a penny to do an incredible amount of infrastructure spending over the next 30 years, but mayor regossa, a leader on the infrastructure movement, he wants to spend all that money up front now, but he needs money up front. the infrastructure bank could loan los angeles the money and get repayment from the additional sales tax, so there's many, many different ways the infrastructure bank could
3:53 pm
leverage, mostly private funding, a little bit of government funding, the european union has an infrastructure bank that loans out money, and actually makes a slight return. now, they loan out money -- we're below interest rates what the normal rates would be. that helps get the project started. contracts do it all the time, and in pennsylvania, we made a rule during the time i was governor. we could disqualify you from bidding on further state contracts if you had a patterns where you bid x to low bid and get the contract, and then you add constant cost overruns so we paid three times x by the time we were done. you were disqualified from doing that. that word has to get out, and the federal government has to do the exact same thing. if there's a pattern of people comeing in and lowballing and drives up costs later, get rid
3:54 pm
of them. throw them off the list. >> host: talking with former pennsylvania governor, ed rendell, about infrastructure spending. he is co-chair of building america's future, best website to find him at is next call for governor rendell comes from cape cod, massachusetts, mike? >> caller: yes, governor, good to hear you speaking. >> guest: hi, mike. >> caller: yeah, i'm retired disabled veteran, and i agree with the high speed rail system idea. i particularly find that if you wanted to lower the interest rates on the bond in order to boost revenues for infrastructure, you need to maybe consider a temporary switching of the bond-to-gold system, you know, temporarily. it's going for $1800 almost an
3:55 pm
ounce. i mean, -- >> host: go ahead, governor. >> caller: i don't know if that's legally feasible, but it would be a terrific idea. there's no question, but it's interesting. the caller reminded me when he talked about being a veteran. one of the things i'd do if we launched into the ten-year revitalization program that creates 5 billion new jobs is take a hunk of those jobs, maybe a couple hundred thousand and make them available for our returning soldiers and sailors and marines from operation iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom in afghanistan. i was shocked to hear just a couple of days ago that 30% of the returning vets from those two wars, iraq and afghanistan are unemployed. they would make excellent construction workers, and we should have a special program, if we do this, where we train them and put them into decent pays jobs.
3:56 pm
>> host: governor governor rendell, do you understand where governor governor scott of florida were coming from when they said no to federal funds for high speed rail? >> guest: i guess they may -- again, i haven't had a chance to speak to any of them, and i know john caisic from days in congress, and he's a great man, but they must have decided the benefits were outweighed by the cost, not only the cost to federal government, but the cost the states had to come up with to match the program, and without being on the ground there, i can't say whether that is analysis is right or wrong. they al were afraid of the problem that laura said in her call, and that's cost overruns tolding it's costing x, and the state money is percentage of x, but what if it's three times x?
3:57 pm
that's the same concern governor christie voiced about the tum project in new york, but my response, and if that's what the governors thought and that analysis is correct, then you can't argue with them. i think ohio would be a state where some high-speed rail would be very valuable admission. i would think that would be true in parts of florida as well, but i don't know the cost benefit analysis well enough to comment on it, but i will say that i think we shouldn't build high speed rail everywhere. there's places where it's not needed. we don't have the density or the potential ridership, but in the three corridors that i talked about, you can bet we've got the density, the potential ridership. a seller at 70 miles per hour makes money, can you imagine what a high-speed rail line at 170-180 miles per hour would
3:58 pm
make? >> host: democrat's line from florida, you're the last caller. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: good morning, leonard. >> caller: go ahead with your comments. >> caller: oh, okay. i know that everybody is, you know, tacks about jobs, jobs, job, and what they're talking about is these, you know, people with college educations going into computers and things like that, but i'm originally from massachusetts where there was a lot of people that were in the mills working, but any ways, what i was getting out is how about bringing back something about from the roosevelt era like the ccc and the wpa? >> host: governor? >> guest: well, first of all, i think, again, i'm a good democrat, leonard, but i think the private sector can do most things better than the government, most things, not all things, most things. that's number one.
3:59 pm
number two, it takes the creation of a huge government bureaucracy to manage that, and we don't need more bureaucracies. number three, it would be slow getting up and running, and we need to get more things into the economy. there are things, though, that i think if i were doing a jobs bill -- i'll give you a good example. we have two programs called america and vista. peter, you are aware of those. we hire mostly young people for one or two year stints in those programs and they help out in cities, rural areas, provide an incredibly important service. now, we could hire in that program, we could hire almost 60,000 young people, and by the way, high school graduates are the single worst hit demographic when it comes to unemployment. we got almost 60,000 young people out $900 billion. if we lease that money starting
4:00 pm
october 1st, those young people could be hired and be on the job by december 1st. 6 # 0 -- 60,000 young people working, providing service. that's a government program that exists already, up and running, and it could be used very, very quickly. another thing that we could do very, very quickly is the fha and fannie mae and freddie mac own # -- 300,000 homes in foreclosure, and most of them need work. the federal government is trying to sell those homes. there's no market. no one is buying the homes. what they ought to do is hire workers, again, through the private sector to re-add those homes quickly, and put them out for rental. there's a rental market. use the rental revenues to help us defray significant amount of the costs that we spend in fixing them up. we could put those workers to
4:01 pm
work in two months getting the houses repaired. there's a lot of things we can do. tiffea, for example, the transportation financing program, there's $3 million in this year's current budget that's been allocated. the tf allocations has not been awarded yet. that's 7,000 new well paying jobs. get those things out tomorrow, tomorrow. there's a lot the president can do, and i hope he does it within the frame work of deficit reduction and i hope the republicans and democrats act responsibly for the country's economic well being. >> host: governor rendell, three seconds, who is the biggest republican threat in the presidential race to president in your view? >> guest: i think governor romney. it's a ticket appealing to independent vehicle coders,
4:02 pm
moderate republicans in the chicago suburbs and cleveland suburbs. they are the strongest. governor perry in four days scared the bejabbers out of people. >> host: what do you think if governor daniels of indiana had run? >> guest: he would be a formidable candidate. i'm a fan. we used to testify before federal committees on privatization of leasing of transportation assets. he did it skellly with the indiana toll road. we almost pulled it off with the pennsylvania turnpike, but mitch daniels is thoughtful, intelligent, moderate leader that i think would have made a very good candidate. >> pilots, -- >> this is a live look at the room where the airline pilots association is hosting a forum this week on air safety, and starting very soon, we'll hear from the head of the national
4:03 pm
transportation safety board, deborah hersman. the associated press reported yesterday that the faa and obama administration have delayed the implementation of new safety rules aimed at preventing pilot fatigue. the rules were to go in effect at the beginning of august, but the new date is late november. chairman deborah hersman has been on the job for over two years and served as a member of the ntsb since 2004. the airline pilots association represents over 59,000 pilots from 39 different airlines around the world. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> thanks, mike. hopefully can cross often safety items from the most-wanted list next year. ladies and gentlemen, we've now reached the final presentation in this year's program, and i believe we've saved the best for last. i am honored to introduce our
4:04 pm
next speaker, ms. deborah hersman, chairman of the national transportation safety board. ms. hersman was named chairman in 2009 and earlier this month was sworn in to serve a second two-year term. she is also serving a second five-year term as a member of the ntsb. she might best be known to us for her leadership and taking on the tough issue of pilot and controller professionalism, but seven years on the board, she's been the member on the scene at 19 major air-rail-maritime-highway investigations including the 2006com-air flight 91 accident in lexington, kentucky. prior to joining the ntsb, she was a senior staff member for the science and transportation committee. she's a graduate from virginia tech university and george
4:05 pm
maison university. please, join me in giving a warm alpha welcome to ntsb chairman, debbie hersman. [applause] >> thank you so much, paul. you know what they say about most speakers speaking 10 minutes too long? well, i know that i'm the only thick that's standing between you and some rest or happy hour, so i assure you that i will be brief if you'll just stick with me for a few minutes longer. you know, this is my 8th air safety forum here with alpa, and it's a real privilege to address so many individuals and an organize that's done so much for aviation safety. in bringing this conference to a close, i think it's appropriate to be in a reflective mood, to look at where we've been and where we're going, so i'd like
4:06 pm
you all to think back 80 years and i know we have a program that's looking back the last 80 years. it's 1931, and, yes, it's the great depression, but it's also the golden age of aviation. donald douglas is building the predecessor aircraft to the dc-3, and panam is inaugurating service with the s-40 flying boat with lindberg at the helm. 80 years ago, alpa was formed, and your first president, dave banky recommended creating an independent, multimember board to investigate accidents and make recommendations to improve safety. what a great idea. [applause]
4:07 pm
at the board, we have five independent board members working together to improve transportation safety, and we have a fantastic team of five board members right now. 80 years ago, pilots are flying as many as 170 hours per month. early print editions of the airline pilot report that there is a pilot death on average every 28 days, and there's a page in the paper dedicated to those pilots who were killed on the job, and it's called a page of sorrow. eight years ago, one of alpa's very first issues was flight and duty time. your leadership then said a tired pilot is an unsafe pilot, and that fall, the department of
4:08 pm
commerce limits the first pilot or the captain to the max mum of 110 flight hours per month, and as we all know the decision and the debate continues today. eighty years later, alpa is still leading the way, and we are still talking about flight and duty time. we share the frustration that companies put profits ahead of safety and slow rolling the publication of a final rule. this afternoon, you heard from tom houder about ntsb, the investigations, and our recommendations, and many of the recommendations focused on the basic issues of training, team work, and leadership, and i know when it comes to safety and add
4:09 pm
vo -- advocating for safety, we have much many common with alpa. throughout history, you advocated and helped achieve improvements in the cockpit such as ground proximity warning systems, weather radar on aircraft, and collision avoidance systems, and so much more. today, i'd like to talk to you about your passion for safety and building the next generation of pilots through training, team work, and leadership. as tom just talked about, in our business at the ntsb, we often see bad outcomes, so every year i look forward to coming to the dinner tonight so i can see line pilots recognized for good outcomes in challenging situations. i especially look forward to
4:10 pm
seeing you all give out the gold. the gold and blue ties that are given to the air safety award winners. i know i saw teri and john cox, and i'm really proud to consider some of the air safety award winners and my friends. in fact, the first time i met my colleague, robert, was in 2005 when he was receiving that blue and gold tie, and in his office hangs a picture of robert and his wife, anne, and daughter mckenzie, with now ambassador worth on the night he received that blue and gold tie as a testament to his career working for aviation safety. alpa's recognition of safety is really an honor to him as it is, as i know, all the folks wearing
4:11 pm
those blue and gold ties tonight. at the board, we look forward to the next 80 years, but my question to you all is how each of you all as professionals and as leaders instill the passion you have for safety that brings you to this conference in the next generation of safety professionals. as a parent of three boys, i think a lot about building the next generation. one of the things that our family does together is sports. now that our sons are a little bit older, we participate in races, not because we are great athletes or especially competitive, even though i have to admit my 10-year-old beat me in a 5k last year -- we do these things because they challenge each of us individually, and we also get to get through them
4:12 pm
together as a family and as a team, and there's a lot to learn by participating in a 5k, a triathlon, or our most recent challenge, the spartan sprint. there's a kids version of the race, but the adult's spartan sprint is an event with challenging obstacles like a barbed wire crawl, a fire jump, and spartan inspired stuff like speer throwing and a gladuater pit, and as dave berry says, i am not making this up. there's running, jumping, climbing, even some dragging of self-and teammates, and i'm hear to tell you that there are some life lessons in these events that are universal truths when it comes to bringing your a-game to the course or to the cockpit.
4:13 pm
life lesson number one -- train well. it's essential that when you're in the moment you're disciplined, prepared, and vigilant. it sounds so simple, doesn't it? yet at the ntsb, we see too many times when there's not adequate preparation or performance when it really counted. one accident that comes to mind is colgan 3507, and that accident led to the aviation safety and pilot training improvement act. life lesson number two -- work together. team work is about listening, sharing your knowledge, knowing when to lead, and when to follow. with his physical strength and my perseverance, my husband and
4:14 pm
i make a great team as we assist and motivate each other through the course, but how about the team work last november when the pilots on the quantis380 with the engine failure and multiple system failures landed safely in singapore with no injuries. life lesson number three -- the importance of sound decision making and leadership. you need to make snap decisions on the obstacle course. how to climb up that pyramid with only a soap covered line to help you, or how to traverse a treacherous part of the course without hurting yourself. it seems intense when you're on the race course, but i know that pails in comparison to the decisions that you all have to make at flight level 350.
4:15 pm
i know each of you can think of an accident that reflected a bad decision. from a takeoff to a landing in little rock. at the end of the spartan sprint, everyone gets a medal. it's not about speed. it's about completing the challenge. when you cross that finish line, it is an individual and a team accomplishment. tonight when those awards are begin out, think about what has really been accomplished. you flew thousands of flights and thousands of miles safely, and you delivered many more thousands of passengers or goods safely. with your professionalism, tragedies were averted and lives were saved, and it doesn't get
4:16 pm
anymore important than that. your job flying the line can probably seem repetitive and rogue sometimes, but at any moment, like those quantis pilots found, the humdrum can quickly become the most challenging obstacle course you've ever faced calling on every tool in your professional tool kit. i opened my remarks this afternoon by talking about the past. when aviation's biggest challenges were more clear cut. improving equipment, developing standardized procedures, and staying clear of terrain. today's challenges are more subtle safety obstacles. automation, complacency, distractionses, but i'll tell you -- training, team work, and leadership are still your very
4:17 pm
best bets whether you're facing old or new safety challenges. we have to ask ourselves, are we building pilots who can handle the challenges of the next 80 years? let me tell you that we heard loud and clear from many pilots at last year's professionalism forum that nothing was more important to maintaining their professionalism in their careers than flying with captains who modeled the right attitudes. it's really up to you all, today's leaders, today's pilots, today's alpa members, and i know we have apa members here to, to help build that jex generation of pilots, one pilot at a time. while you're in the left seat, make the right choice. mentor those who are following
4:18 pm
you. you are the most powerful teachers. while your flying, model professionalism through your training, team work, and leadership. pass it forward. each one teach one. that's your individual legacy, and by each one of you and all of you collectively doing this together, alpa is guaranteed to be a passionate force in continuing safety legacy for the next 80 years. thank you, all, so much. [applause] [applause] >> how's than for an on-time arrival, guys? [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, ms. hersman, for
4:19 pm
your remarks. congratlations on your new term, and alpa looks forward to continuing our strong professional relationship with your board and staff. we are honored you joined us here today. ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the business portion of the alpa business form up. for eight decades, pilots, controllers, engineers, manufacturers, and regulators like you have worked together to make our north american air space system the envy of the world and make commercial aviation the safest mode of transportation on the planet. it didn't happen because they stood back and let others do the work. it happens because untold thousands of people stepped forward and volunteered their time, energy, and expertise. you are part of that leg say, and you carry on that work with pride. whether you are investigating accidents or working to prevent them, maintaining awareness to keep your airlines secure or providing a helping hand to a
4:20 pm
pilot who needs it, you are an essential part of the alpa team. you make one level of safety work. it's been 80 years and counting, and with your sweat and brain power, we will move into our ninth decade confident, stronger, and more professional than ever, but we'll worry about the sweat and brain power tomorrow. tonight, it's time to celebrate our achievements. in one hour and 60 minutes, the bar opens for the awards reception. the reception goes until seven o'clock, and then we head to the international ballroom for the awards dinner. the speaker is known to you all, captain randy babbit who hung around alpa office. he moved to the faa. we honor the pilots who went above and beyond in the past year. following the dinner, concluding the evening with the hospitality
4:21 pm
suite graciously provided by boeing. thank you for your attention, participation this week, and to our generous sponsors. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> that wraps up remarks from deborah hersman. tonight, we'll be back at this airline pilot's association forum at 8 p.m. eastern for live comments from faa administrator randy babbitt talking about airline security and new rules for pilots. you can see that on c-span. today is the last day of the
4:22 pm
three-day forum on air safety and security, but yesterday, john pistol joined a panel discussion on airport and cargo screening, and with security improvements made since 9/11. this is an hour and 25 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome become, everyone. i hope you had a relaxing lunch and a chance to visit with the exhibitors too. with all the dignitaries, government officials, and press here today, i've observed that everybody is on their best behavior. i did notice, though, that habits are hard to resist. during the lunch break, several pilots combed through the rows
4:23 pm
of seats looking for newspapers. captain, cassidy, i promised not to say any names, just save me the suduko puzzle there, thanks. to the individuals who received awards monday and tuesday this week, would you please stand to be recognized? we're proud to have you on our team. [applause] we now begin the afternoon session by focusing on the very important task of keeping our aviation system safe. like safety, security is all about eliminating or mitigating risk. the question is how do you continually improve a system when the threat is often difficult to identify and resources are getting scarce? discussing that now will be an all-star panel including captain moke and our moderator, captain sean cassidy of alaska
4:24 pm
airlines. >> good afternoon, and welcome. i'm can want sean cassidy, and i'm a pilot for alaska airlines. we are pleased and honored today to be joined by the clef executives of the chief administration organization, alpa, and vice president security and facilitation airports counsel international north america discussing the current status of aviation security and many of its aspects including the use of intelligence of identifying potential risk, risk analysis, and implementing effective risk mitigation strategies. the subject is of great interest because after the haven'ts of inch, we have to stay ahead of our adversaries to protect not only aviation, but our entire national economy. alpa called on the government to
4:25 pm
shift to a risk-based security system, and could not be more pleased, that is now being done. as background for the discussion, i would like to offer historical perspective on the subject of aviation security. civil aviation security exists to prevent terrorists or criminal activity directed against aircraft, airports, and the people who occupy them and addressing hijacking, damaging and destroying aircraft, assaulting passengers and aviation employees. in view of the terrorist attacks by al-qaeda on 9/11, the shoe bomb attack and the more recent attack to initiate an explosion on board northwest airlines flight 253 on christmas day 2009. it is clear aviation remains a target and why aviation security is high in the list of priorities for governments, the traveling public, and the international aviation community. let's review a pre-9/11 aviation
4:26 pm
security benchmarks. 1968-1973 marked the peak of highjackings, mostly to cuba. at that time, the u.s. department of transportation estimated 364 hijackings occurred worldwide. most were political or financial in nature. consequently, our response strategy was one of accommodation, more than con confrontation. in the early 70s, government required gening of passengers and property to ensure no unlawful, danger weapons or explosives were carried aboard the aircraft. from 1973-2001, the security system prohibits nonsuicidal individuals and work well for the purpose, but the limitations were demonstrated on 9/11. that brings us to the post-9/11 era. in congressional testimony,
4:27 pm
given to weeks after the 9/11 attacks. then acting faa deputy administrator said, and i quote, "the nature of the threat facing america has changed. what we faced on september 11th was a new fee. hijackers taking over flights to turn them into terrorist bombs. assumptions underlying security have fundamentally changed." in november of 2001, congress passed the aviation and transportation security agent referred to as apsa establishing the security administration and charged the agency with the responsibility for the security of all modes of transportation. government's response to the new category of threat was understandable afelting to counter the repeat of the 9/11-style attack. more initially check point procedures were allowed with
4:28 pm
pre-9/11 philosophies. everybody was submitted to the same security techniques, a grandparent, 5-year-old child or a congressman were treated the same as a foreign national adult with a questionable or unconfirmed identification. the process was rigid and inflexible. to benter harness intelligence and separate known from unknown individuals, u.s. government proposed a more sophisticated version of the computer assisted system known as caps 1. that program was replaced by caps 2 which was benefited with data mining of public and private identification sources to establish the travelers' trustworthiness. it was abandoned ultimately to be replaced by the security flight program. regarding use of intelligence in response to the northwest airlines 253 incident, the senate select committee on intelligence offeredded some
4:29 pm
conclusions in eights may 18th 2010 report. notably the individual not placed on the government's screening terror data base list, the state department should have, but did not revoke -- intelligence reports were not districted within the cia regarding this individual, and the government failed to contact the intelligence reporting communities on this person. subsequently in december 2010, dhs announced all passengers on flights with bound for the united states are now being checked on a government watch list-under-par the implementation of tsa's secure flight program. previously, airlines were responsible for checking passenger names against watch lists. in spite of seemingly equal application of physical screening techniques after airport check points, internationals could aboard aircraft while wearing clotting that made identification
4:30 pm
impossible. one mask made him appear to be much older and was aaron to board a flight from hong kong to vancouver. that incident demonstrated the potential for defeating the system that relied heavily on physical screening technology, but didn't pay attention to the individual being screened. with advancements in screening technology, we saw the x-ray machine be replaced with a ct scanner. they monitor airport perimeters and doors and use software anomalies identification systems. trace equipment can indicate trace residue and analyze material inside shoes. one advanced imagery technology are prevalent at airports and generated health concerns. in addition to the significant reliance on technology in airport screening, there's an
4:31 pm
increase the use of human intervention through behavioral pattern recognition programs by observation techniques referred to as the spots program in use now at boston's logan intergnarl airport. the wide deployment of tsa detection officers. like alpa was at the forefront advocating for passenger screening, it was also at the fore front in performing risk-based security with government and industry. in january 2010, alpa published an advanced paper calling an approach to aviation and security rather than one that treats all the same and seeks prohibited items through reliance on technology. this, at times, public awareness and support for the concept is raised globally as evidenced by subject matter experts calling for the implementation of a risk-base the security system.
4:32 pm
a con consortium of representatives undertook efforts to use alpa and this was approve the and implemented by tsa at three domestic airports. after a number of years of successful operation, it evolved into a jointly sponsored program between alpa and ata known to as a crew member, a test that began last week at o'hare international airport. i was proud to be there when the system rolled out. they have the program as an example of alternative screening which allows us better unitlyization of tsa resources, ascertaining, confirming and validating threats to aviation. this represents one facet of a risk-based screening system. in summary, these implemented by government saw limited success
4:33 pm
in differentiating between those posing threats and those who do not. with that, i believe i offered enough food for thought on this topic, and i'd like to introduce the members of this distinguished panel. to my right is captain lee moak, and to his right, john pistole, and to his left, mr. crist bidwell, vice president, security facilitation airport international north america, and on a side note, chris is filling in for chris who was unable to join us due to a family emergency. chris joins as vice president and facilitation in object 2008, and is responsible for leading the association's efforts on airport security facilitation, and regulatory activities. he monitors domestic and
4:34 pm
international security developments, regulatory action, and programs impacting security and facilitation at north american airports, and we're very pleased to have chris here with us today. that concludes my opening comments. as far as what the rules of engagement are today, what we're going to do is start to my left, give each of the panelists a few minutes to offer some opening comments and observations. i have prepared questions that we've been working on in collaboration with many of our security professionals, and then probably about the last 15 minutes or so, we'll have audience participation in which questions are submitted ahead of time to our staff members in the back, and they will be submitted to me to close the panelists. with that, i invite chris bidwell to start off. >> thank you very much, captain cassidy, and i'd like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for alpa to invest airports counsel
4:35 pm
international north america to speak at this event. i had the privilege to work closely with the pilots -- i can't list everybody because there are many other alpa representatives, and i can say that alpa continues to be a great partner to airports and to tsa to support you on aviation security initiatives. ..
4:36 pm
>> includes a discussion of the policies, procedures, programs, and technologies that have significantly shaped and contributed to the security enhancement of the system that we have today. security happens at airports. for that reason it is essential for dhs and tsa to continue to coordinate with airports on security initiatives. just this morning, secretary napolitano speaking on the topic of homeland security since 9/11, looking back, looking forward commented that the role of the private sector is important and that security is a shared responsibility. and airports council international north america agrees. we appreciately met with the secretary to discuss ways in which airports and other industry representatives can work together with dhs and tsa collaboratively to further enhance aviation security. one the key aspects of that that we're going to touch on is by
4:37 pm
leverageing available intelligence information and data. along those lines the timely sharing of intelligence information is critical. this is evidenced by the yemen plot. significant amounts of data and intelligence information that is available can and should be used to effectively harness and really focus or limited aviation security resources. and, you know, through collaborative relationships, socially working in the classified setting, there's the potential for tsa airports, airlines, to identify strategies that enhance security while keeping in mind the need to balance that with customer service and efficiency. in addition, i believe there should be an ongoing government to review processes and procedures out there there.
4:38 pm
we took the initiative to build the strategic partnership with tsa to launch what we call the security review. through that process, we work with our members, tsa, and other associations to look measures and identify those that are out moded, need clarification, or need tour thrown out completely. although security measures through the idsr has been completely rescinded, they were no longer necessary. this allowed limited resources to be redirected to bolster other areas. in short, this is the essence of the risk-based program or initiative. it's worth saying that many
4:39 pm
airports go above and beyond the security requirements. for access control, patrols, they have installed protection systems, closed circuit televisions, and provided security awareness training for employees. many of these airport security enhancements for implemented absent a mandate to do so. and had the additional benefit of not only enhancing security, but also improving efficiency. so to the core of the discussion today, tsa's risk-based security initiatives are in accordance with a key recommendation for focusing on people rather than things. and this helps to preserve our limited resources. from a practical perspective, risk-based security harnesses available data and intelligence information to serve as an indicator to guide the application of screening resources. the most invasive screening technology and procedures should
4:40 pm
be and will be under these programs reserved and applied to individuals, items, and cargo about which the least is known. aci supported tsa risk-based security initiatives and looks forward to work with the agency and partners to develop and row out the noncrew member and nontraveler program. these risk based security programs have the potential to increase security and efficiency of the current system, while also ensures it is sustainable over the next ten years, when passengers volumes are expected to top ten billion annually. every part in the aviation industry plays a critical role in contributing to security. they recognize the security advanced by alpa, and we look forward to continue to work with the support of the shared goal
4:41 pm
of providing efficient and effective security. thank you, and i look forward to the questions. >> thank you, chris. one note too is while we're going through the panel and while you are questions are addressed and answers, if you have any questions that you would like asked, please feel free to jot them down. once we have the pause from the prepared questions, we'll have an opportunity to collect the questions. mr. calio? >> thank you, sean, and thank you, lee and alpa for the opportunity to be here. on september 11th, 2001, the terrorists were not attacking the airlines. they were looking for the most potent way to disrupt the u.s. economy and the way of life. they thought it out pretty well. airports are the physical internet. aviation drives the worldwide economy, as well as the u.s. economy. ata's priorities here are
4:42 pm
simple. we want a risk-based, intelligence-driven approach to security that enhances overall safety and security, makes the screening process better and quicker for passengers, and also helps to facilitate the movement of goods worldwide. that's why we are pleased to partner with alpa on the known crew member program. it is off to a good start. we are looking forward to see that program expanded to others. we also think that it's the exact right kind of approach, and commend tsa for working with us on it. it takes available information and people who are less risk or no risk and moves them through the system which is going to help everybody else along the way in the process. that's why we too look forward and support the known traveler program and look forward also to a known cargo program. i'd just like to take the opportunity before saying i'm willing to move on to questions after the others.
4:43 pm
administrator pistole, he's leading just exactly the right kind of approach to security, it's a professional law enforcement approach, and it's based on solid intelligence and data sharing with government and shake holders. something that's needed and can help the process. thank you. >> all right. hey, thanks. thanks for the panel. thanks for everybody knows up. it's kind of a unique role for me to be on a panel with captain cassidy monitoring it. usually it might be the other way around. but as we approach the ten year anniversary of 9/11, if you go back just a couple of years ago, i think we were all shocked a little bit and we were fortunate. the event that occurred on christmas day 2009 with the under wear bomber was his attack on northwest airlines 253 and following on what occurred in
4:44 pm
october 2010, would the printer cartridge attacks on the federal express and ups cargo aircraft provided a reminder that there is a determined, adaptive, adversary that remains focused on attacking civil aviation. and that we must be vigilant. that we must continue to work together. that we must not let our guard down. now it goes without saying, and i agree with everyone on the panel that civil aviation is a critical component of a nation's infrastructure. and the global economy. and, you know, pilots have a vested interest in security. and in the ultimate command of the aircraft and the responsibility for the lives of everyone on board. once we're airborne, problems are sealed in. we just can't pull over to the curve. so it's important that working together that we combat those
4:45 pm
problems before they occur once we're in the air. since 9/11, the airline pilots association has been a trusted partner with tsa and the industry in bringing out many improvements. known crew member, crew pass, common strategy, ffto, crew member self-defense, cargo security, and, you know, terrorists are constantly changing their methodologies and a question for this group for this panel is where do they go from here? you know, one side fits all security paradigm that worked fairly well when it was introduced in the 60s is inadequate to meet today's threat. i'm confident we are heading towards a risk identification and risk strategy in order to stay ahead.
4:46 pm
the general security culture needs to change. advanced screening technology while important are not a panacea. they are not a silver bullet. you can't treat all passengers as an equal threat and search for harmful objects only. we must look for evil intent. now doing so will enhance, i believe, will enhance passenger privacy, facilitate passenger flow, and better focus or limited screening resources. pilots, ffdos, leos, flight attendants, other aviation employees who's identify, employment status, and background are known should be accommodated in a fashion consistent with their known status. we're pleased that the administrator has announced his
4:47 pm
intentions to build on the known crew member program with the known traveler program. and that's going to incorporate risk-based philosophy and drive towards a better system and a more efficient passenger screening model. on other miss -- risk mitigation opportunity that is are before us, one, all cargo airline operations. they continue to be conducted we believe under reduced security requirements. when compared to passenger operations. there's a lack of parity inside of requirements, back row vetting of individuals, and unescorted access to core go aircraft, lack of hardened aircraft doors, no mandated raining for all cargo strategy, and all of that contributes. we need to work on that. the ffdo program in this era of financial austerity is, i
4:48 pm
believe, an under served resource. there's thousands of pilots who are volunteering their services to the government to provide this line of defense on the flight deck. yet, the program's budget and we understand that, the budget has not been increased in many years. we want to work harder on that. threatened airspace management, pilots in command of airborne aircraft are those about to take off should be notified realtime of events that are going on. in such circumstances improved ground air communications will better enable pilot in commands to protect their passengers, their crew, their cargo, their aircraft. also allow them to be more vigilant when they know there's another event taking place. secondary barriers, now we are pleased that the rtca special
4:49 pm
committee 221 will soon issue the final report on the value of the permanently installed secondary flight deck barriers. alpa urges the industry to consider the benefit that's provided by the devices. you know, this is a long time coming. we've gone through a process. and it's time that we solved this issue. we should have the secondary barrier. security training for aviation workers, and individuals who make the aviation industry go should be viewed as a part of the solution rather than as a part of the problem. in summary, pilots are ultimately in charge of the safety and security of the airlines, passengers, crew and cargo. and we're working diligently to protect those resources. our lives literally depend on our successes and our failures in this effort. the airline pilot association
4:50 pm
commends tsa administrator pistole for the courage and the wisdom and partner with us on approving the known crew member program. and we commend the ata for taking the step with us, the jointly sponsor the known crew member program. the program now has rolled out, and we are confident that it will past the test over the next few months and rapidly move through some 80 u.s. airports over the coming year. we would also like to commend our other industry partners, aci who share our vision on security. in order to achieve sus, we encourage the tsa to reach out to the industry subject matter experts in a truly meaningful dialogue while policies are being shaped not after the fact, and i think these recent
4:51 pm
successes are a great example of that. we have -- we all have much in common. on risk based security and making it a reality. and al pa stands ready to partner with anyone. we are trusted, capable partners and we'll bring solutions to the table. thank you. >> thank you, sean, for the moderation. and thank you captain moak for the opportunity to speak and be on their panel. seems like a lot of issues that i would secure have been touched upon. thank you for your leadership and support. i have three points. one the threats are real and evolving. second that risk-based security makes sense, third that
4:52 pm
partnerships are critical. they have focused on aviation, and they cannot to have an interest as we've seen going from 9/11, using the aircraft as a weapon to the ied with a shoe bomber and christmas day and then the attempts involving the liquids. that's why the threats are real and evolving. we face an emergency that is determined and focused on the design, construction, and concealment of ieds that will defeat our security apparatus. because it's a global supply chain, we know we are only as strong as our weakest length.
4:53 pm
that's why the partnership is critical. security, the risk-based security makes sense. the whole approach that we are taking is to try to work in partnership to provide the most effective security in the most efficient way. and risk-based security addresses that, i believe, in several facets. getting back to the first issues of the threats being real, we can't try to do the same type of security screening for each and every passenger to provide the most effective security in the most efficient way. same thing on the cargo. first three months, over 700 million pounds of cargo coming in the u.s. we have to make sure we are working in close partnership to address how to focus on the high risk cargo in a way that focuses on known shippers and known shipments. we have great industry cooperation in moving forward in that area. i want to applaud alpa, along with ata in terms of the
4:54 pm
risk-based security. it just aprouded the work that has been done in that realm. they have also been a supporter of what we are doing. the key from my perspective is we have a number of different tools. intelligence is the most effective tools. intelligence comes from sources. very likely from industry, rather than a government source. that's why the partnerships come back. in one size fits all has been mentioned. that's one approach. we can do better. that's why we are working in such close collaboration with the partners that you see up here. crew member is something that we are very supportive of and very pleased to see that the initial proof of concept is working well at o'hare.
4:55 pm
clearly the policy is there to move forward. same thing with trusted travel, known traveler, a lot of names. very much interested in how we do the proof of concept that we'll see this fall, early october when we'll see at least four airports piloting those concepts. and so that's all part of that partnerships and collaboration that we come down to. the other part of that is global entry, and the century is very supportive of what customs and border protection has already exists. and an entry point for those who want to have the possibility of expedited screening because we're doing additional intelligence screening on the front end. which brings me through the third point president the partnership is critical, not only what we've been talking about. but with all associations and really the traveling public. i think there's president lincoln who said the best
4:56 pm
defense of democracy is an informed electorate. cleanly when it comes to passenger security, informed traveling public is one of our most effective tools in terms of being aware of surroundings, see something, say something. but being prepared to go through the check point to focus on those that we know the least about. the cast program was something that we believe is another recognition of pilots as being the most trusted persons in the air. so if we can't trust pilots, then who can we trust? clearly the whole known crew member and the jump sheet program are aimed at facilitating the pilot moved in that regard. were broadly, we are taking initiatives, which gives the
4:57 pm
generic outline of the person. the assess sort program, which we are doing a proof of concept, the screening of children 12 and under that we are working through different onyxes there, recognizing that in the very great likelihood the child is not being used as a terrorists, but unfortunately, we are aware of adults using children in that regard elsewhere. of course the honor flights. if they are on a charter, we do risk-based security can them, using the intelligence-driven approach. the bottom line is there are no guarantees. risk is the watch word, not elimination. to conclude, i would note the last job almost 27 years at the fbi. there's a saying in the courtyard that i'll paraphrase is cooperation of the american people. as we look at 10th anniversary
4:58 pm
of 9/11, to update that, it would be the most effective tool. it's cooperation of freedom loving people worldwide. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, mr. pistole. wonderful introductory comments and a perfect segue to get into the questions of a panel here. i could not think of a better way to launch into the rest of the forum today. so what i'm going to do, i'm going to pose the questions to the group here. there's no specific need for one or all or any to answer. i think all of the questions address issues that we all have in common from all of the stakeholders here up obvious the podium with me. since the christmas day attack on northwest airlines flight 253, it has become more clear there's a global trend towards a more risk-based approach to airline passenger screening.
4:59 pm
the first question that i'd like to pose, i'd like to ask each of you about the evolving threat to aviation security and how we best manage the ever-changing threat. and what is needed from your perspectives? want to lead off, chris? >> sure, happy to do it. >> thank you. >> from acina's perspective, we think that as mentioned previously that leveraging available intelligence information and data to really focus the application of technology and screening the resources on the individuals and items in cargo for that matter which we know the least about is the right approach. and clearly that's what we are supporting. >> what i've said and others said is covered. we need to continue what we are


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on